Not Traditional, Original

The Vision of OriginalChristianity.Net

The vision of OriginalChristianity.Net is to look at the beliefs and practices of the the original Christians.  The reason why this is important is that over the millennium Christianity has developed numerous factions that all claim that that they are the true continuation of original Christianity.  I heard exactly that when I visited a Greek Orthodox Church, I have read it in Roman Catholic literature, it is in the bulletin of a local non-denominational church in my area.  They make these claims despite the fact that they have disagreed, even violently at times.  For other articles on this topic, see A Major Objection to the Restoration Movement Is That Christianity Has Not Changed Substantially Over Time, and Another Claim of Original Christianity in Practice Today,

Throughout this website are numerous articles written on the numerous divisions in the Church that we have today, how a lot of these doctrines developed that are behind all these divisions, and some key points on how original Christianity differed from today.  It is important to look at all these things because they are part of Christianity now and play a big part, perhaps more as obstacles, in the faith of the individual believer.

But the key point of this website is to be able to envision what original Christianity, and in particular the time of Jesus and the apostles and disciples that he touched was really like. There was an incredible spirituality. With the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah, and afterward the sending of the Holy Spirit we see the most incredible movement of God on earth since creation.

Click to Read More…

This was a time of power, miracles, healing, and deliverance, not only by Jesus, but by those he touched, his apostles and disciples. People saw God in action through these men. They saw the word of God living, because they lived it together. There was incredible community and sharing. There was incredible believing. There was great faith.

It was a time of simple doctrine.  There were no official doctrines on infant baptism or believer’s baptism. There was no doctrine that prophecy and the other gifts and manifestations of the spirit had ceased. There were baptisms being carried out, and the last supper repeated as a memorial, but there were no “sacraments”, somehow mysteriously conveying grace by ritualistic practices. There were no autonomous churches disputing which form of church government was doctrinally correct, which end times theology was correct, or arguments over whether or not there was eternal security.

There was no argument over the status of the Bible, because there was no Bible. Jesus had referenced the law and the prophets, including the Psalms, as the word of God. And only those books with the addition of the words of Jesus were considered the word of God. There were no written Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There were no epistles of Peter, Paul, Hebrews, John, and Jude. So there was no argument over doctrines derived from them like eternal security, justification by grace, predestination, or even the Trinity.

Philosophy was rejected as an unwise practice of the Greeks that actually tore down faith more than it built, so discussion of faith wasn’t an analytical exercise in the nuances of the meanings of words, but rather simple directives, and powerful stories and analogies that emphasize the important meanings to be focused on while ignoring the myriad details that can lead people astray.

What existed was the good news that Jesus the Messiah had come, that he had fulfilled the law, had sent the Holy Spirit, and now many believers were walking in great faith and power. What existed was great praise, great faith, and great love of God.

All of this is not to say that this was an easy time. There were persecutions, challenges, and trials, as both the Jews and the Romans saw this burgeoning Christianity as a threat. But this just served to bring the Christians closer together, and more united in their faith.

Original Christianity was a time of great unity, simple doctrine, great believing, with many believers walking in the love of God, and the power of the Holy Spirit.

So as you read these articles that discuss all of the divisions, and developments, both good and bad throughout the millennia of history of Christianity, it is important to maintain the focus of the simple vision of original Christianity.  Pray, praise the Lord, walk in the power of the spirit, love God and love your neighbor, and rejoice in what Christ has done. Join together with any Christian who is doing the same.  And in the process perhaps we can bring some of what made original Christianity so great back to life.

© copyright 2012 Mark W Smith, all rights reserved.

Welcome to Original Christianity.Net

It appears that universally, in the church, we Christians marvel at both at Jesus’ miracles and the wisdom in his parables. We especially are in awe of his life, his incredible birth, his short but incredibly powerful ministry, his passion, death, and resurrection. We love him for those. We are also moved by the depth of the wisdom and inspiration of books like the Psalms and Proverbs. Almost universally, although most would say all true Christians, acknowledge him as Lord, and strive to follow his leadership as we walk in a dark world filled with daily challenges, including overcoming evil.

Click to Read More…

In fact, there are some universal, and some almost universal, elements in Christianity. Universally held elements of Christianity include this deep awe of Christ, and likewise, for the bible. The bible, or at least for some, sections of the bible, such as the parables of Christ in the gospels, the powerful poetry of the Psalms, and the wisdom in Proverbs are universally held in the deepest regard. Almost universally held elements include the belief in Christ as the only begotten son of the Father, physically born of the Virgin Mary in Bethlehem, who died for out sins, and was raised from the dead and is presently seated at the right hand of God. Christians look forward to spending eternity with the Lord. Even more, there is common ground as churches promote worship, baptism, and communion with some similarity.

But beyond some basics like these, there is far less agreement on the tenets of Christianity. In fact, there is an elephant in the Church, an elephant of disagreement resulting in tens of thousands of sects, disagreeing on many doctrines.

The disagreements have been legion, often bloody, and always confusing. Christians have killed other Christians for defying the rule of infant baptism and proclaiming “believer’s baptism”. Many Christians have declared other Christians apostate because of their view of the Bible, whether it is inerrant, infallible, or at least partially of human origin.

And even if they agree on the status of the Bible, they don’t agree on what it says on these issues. For example, there is disagreement over basic principles of interpretation like whether the overriding principle is based on the covenants of God versus which dispensation we are in.

There are Christians that call other Christians apostate (traitorous) because they believe that the gifts of the spirit, i.e., prophecy and speaking in tongues, etc. still exist, and vice versa. These days there are sharp divides over homosexuality, abortion, the Word of Faith movement, the emergent Church movement, and the role of women in the church.

Even if Christians don’t call others apostate, they still disagree to the point of not fellowshipping over issues like: dietary laws (whether they need to be followed), drinking alcohol, end times (Eschatology), eternal security, evolution vs. literal seven days of creation, giving vs. tithing, predestination, psychology: the acceptability of Christian counseling, sacraments as conveyers of grace or not, the “in the name of Jesus” debate, and pacifism vs. the concept of a just war, and other issues.

Then there is the ecumenical concept of Christian “orthodoxy” that suggests that none of the issues so far discussed really matter even there are huge divisions over them. The only issue that really matters in “orthodoxy” is whether one accepts the doctrine of the Trinity, that Jesus the man is really God and a person in a triune godhead with two other persons, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. This doctrine is promoted as the absolutely most important concept in Christianity even though this emphasis is totally missing for the first centuries of the church.

And let alone that the very doctrine of the Trinity has been disputed over the centuries with more Christians killing other Christians over this issue than any other. It appears that for some that as long as a church accepts the doctrine of the Trinity it doesn’t matter if it teaches that homosexuality is normal or apostate, and/or abortion is choice or murder, and/or baptism should be infant baptism or believer’s baptism, and/or there are two “ordinances” or seven sacraments, and so forth, and so on.

This mess is a huge blemish on the body of Christ. Some of these issues may be legitimate, but to have so many “orthodox” churches teaching so many disparate doctrines flies right in the face of Paul’s charge for believers to have the same mind:

Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you all say the same thing, and there be no divisions among you, but you be united in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1 Corinthians 1:10 LITV)

If, as Paul teaches, we corporately are the body of Christ, then does the current collective body of competing Christian theologies accurately reflect the mind of Christ. Certainly, no one can think so.

But, before the present time with our tens of thousands of Christian denominations, and before the Reformation that shifted the focus of Christianity from the decisions of church councils and the Pope to the Bible as the principle source of guidance, and before the great schism about a thousand years ago, even before there were arguments over the nature of Christ, the Trinity and whether Mary was the mother of God in the beginning of the age of Christendom (fourth century), even before there was a Catholic church (110 A.D.) there was original primitive Christianity.

While some of the focus of Christianity remains, much has changed over the millennia. The question is whether all or even any of the different traditions that have developed are correct, or the original believers were the ones that actually got it the most right. The place to start is by looking at the beliefs and practices of original, primitive Christianity, and seriously consider embracing them again even though some of them may be radically different from what you or I hold today.

In the days of original, primitive Christianity:

(In the listings below hyperlinks offer more information on the point being made.)

Elements usually still held today:

Elements still held today by some:

Elements held today by few, if any believers:

Elements that are divisive today but didn’t appear to exist then:

The most current blogs (articles) are below. The articles can touch on a large number of topics including ancient history, the original language of the bible, grammar and logic, dividing doctrines besides the basics of Christianity, what Jesus taught, and development (movements) in Christianity throughout the centuries. For an organized listing of the blogs (articles) to get an overview and better understanding of the contents on this web site, go to the table of contents. There is more information on design of this website on this page; look on the right sidebar under Original Christianity and click “Why? Click to Read More…”   Trajan’s Response to Pliny as an example of the Roman View on Christianity

The Roman response to Christianity varied from severe  persecution to an attitude of “Don’t ask … don’t look for them.”  This latter attitude was initiated by the Emperor Trajan.  Before we discuss Trajan it needs to be noted that the Roman Empire was a huge place, and obviously, people couldn’t travel nor communicate at the speed at which they can now. So while persecutions may have been very visible in Rome and major Roman cities Romans in fringe areas were very possibly very accepting of Christians. Persecution really varied from place to place and time to time.

Bithynia was an area on the modern shore of what is now Turkey. And in 111 Pliny the Younger was appointed its governor. Pliny was neither a despot nor a pagan fanatic. He appears to have been a fair man, an educated man who simply wanted to do a good job as a Roman governor. And as soon as he was appointed governor he noticed a problem. There were so many Christians in the area that the temples were being underused and the sellers of animals for sacrifices were hurting for business. Pliny began investigating, and started bringing Christians before him for examination.

One of the policies of Roman conquest was that it did not try to change everything in the places that it conquered. Rather, it was relatively tolerant of the beliefs and systems of its conquered peoples. Its approach was to build the Roman cities in the newly conquered lands as well as to introduce Roman customs and laws that it believed would foster a peace Empire wide.  As part of its policy on tolerance Roman citizens had to be accepting of Roman religion and thus worship all the gods. You could worship your God as long as you worshiped Roman gods.

When Pliny brought Christians before him he demanded that they follow these practices: “they pray to the gods, burn incense before the image of the Emperor, and curse Christ – things he had heard true Christians would never do. Once they met these requirements he simply let them go.”[i]

When confronted many did recant. However, many did not. Pliny felt that he had a large problem as there were a lot of Christians in his jurisdiction. If the Christians were Roman citizens they were sent to Rome. But of those that were not he had them executed as the law required.

However, with this being a continuing problem, and with Pliny considering himself fair and just, he sought to find out just what crimes these Christians were really committing, besides just being really stubborn about not worshiping Roman gods. He found out that they gathered before dawn to sing hymns. He found that they took oaths not to commit thefts, adultery or other sins. He found that they had been meeting for a common meal but had discontinued those when authorities had outlawed those meetings. What he didn’t find were real crimes.

Pliny actually tortured two female ministers to grill them on what their activities really were, looking for treason, sedition, i.e., real crimes.  Not surprisingly, he found out they weren’t really committing any crimes other than not worshiping all the gods. So he suspended operations and wrote to the Emperor Trajan.

Trajan was Emperor from 98 to 117. But his response to Pliny’s request lasted well into the middle of  third century.

Trajan’s response was simple and quick. “When it comes to the punishment of Christians, there is no general rule that is equally valid in all circumstances. On the one hand, the nature of their crime is such that the state should not waste time seeking them out. On the other hand, if they are accused and refuse to recant, they should be punished. Those who are willing to worship the gods should be pardoned without further inquiries. Finally, anonymous accusations should be disregarded, for they are of bad legal precedent and are unworthy of this age.”[ii]

This was a political response. It acknowledged that Christians were not committing crimes against citizens, or of the state for that matter, other than not worshiping Roman gods. But the problem was no one could be allowed to flaunt the law. By being required to worship Roman gods, and refusing to do so, they were showing contempt for the law. By not burning incense to the Emperor they were showing contempt for the Roman concept of who the Emperor was.

Knowing this policy of Roman law regarding their faith required Christians to expend considerable effort, first of all, not to offend possible accusers.  If no one accused you, you could live your whole life freely worshipping the Lord as you saw fit.  But a lot of activities had to be hidden from possible accusers.

Secondly, Christians needed to develop a strategy for educating Roman society in general as to their true nature.  The strategy they developed was to write apologies. Today apology takes the meaning of saying “I’m sorry”. But the word apology actually comes from the Greek word apologia meaning defense.  The second and third centuries especially produced numerous Christian apologists defending their faith, and in so doing also changed the way the Christians thought about their faith.  In defending the faith Apologists had to explain Christianity in terms that Roman Society would understand.  Comparisons had to be made, for example, to other religions and philosophies,  to show what was considered offensive in Christianity was actually found in religions and philosophies that already existed and were accepted in the empire.  This, however, opened it own cans of worms as using existing religions and philosophies introduced concepts and terms that were outside the realm of what the participants of original Christianity discussed.

Also at issue was the attitude of Roman aristocracy against the kinds of people who were Christians at that time. While it is true there were a few higher ranking Romans, business people, and so forth the majority of Christians were from the lower classes, and were considered a crude ignorant lot. In fact, because of that, Christianity itself was considered a foolish, crude religion practiced by a bunch of barbarians.

As a result apologists and the early church fathers often got involved in discussions to show the superiority of Christianity to the religions whose gods they had to worship or be executed.  But the discussions worked in some places to integrate Christianity both with pagan cultures and practices and with Greek philosophies.

Yet something needed to happen for believers striving to live their Christian faith for Christ in the environment where simply being Christian could get them executed under a long standing Roman policy.

[i] The Story of Christianity, Justo L Gonzalez, HarperOne,  HarperCollins, New York, 2010 p.50

[ii] ibid

04.01 Augustine’s Crooked Path to Catholicism

Augustine was born of a pagan father and a Christian mother in in Thagaste in Algeria in 354[i] AD.

It was an interesting time. There was a strong clash between the liberal Christianity in the West of the Empire and the dogmatic, conservative Christianity of the eastern part of the Empire. Christianity in the west was “tending to absorb pagan cultures, to synthesize the biblical teaching with classical education, Christian with pagan art, and to accommodate the churches law to the ways of existing society.”[ii] In the East and that included North Africa, “Christianity, both Donatist and Catholic, continued the tradition of protest. Views tended to be formulated in terms of contrast with pagan society.… Christianity was regarded as a ‘law’ distinct from secular law.”[iii]  In northern Africa converts renounced everything about the world: politics, philosophies, literature, art, and so forth.

Donatism was a very pure form of Christianity and is reflected in the above statement. Donatists believed that the hallmark of Christianity was purity for the believer and especially for the clergy. Donatists aspired to for a martyr’s death. Donatists believed that their clergy must be faultless for their sacraments to be valid.  Donatism was the opposition to the Western Christianity’s willingness to absorb pagan society.

Many people in North Africa in high places of society were Donatist, and Donatism continued into the sixth century.

Thagaste at the time of Augustine’s birth had recently been Donatist, but had converted to Catholicism.  Still, these issues of the standards of North African Catholicism, Donatism, and Western Catholicism were widely debated around Augustine from his birth. That is not to say that Augustine was pure in his Christianity from the very onset because as we shall see he embraced other philosophies and religions before he eventually became the Orthodox theological powerhouse that led him to be later named as one of the first Doctors of the Church.

On a broader scope Augustine was born mid fourth century, and the fourth century marked major changes for Christians and the establishment of much of what to this day became to be known as orthodox mainstream Christianity.  In 313 AD Christians are restored their property.  In 323 AD Christianity is established as at least a religion of the empire. The council of Nicaea, 325 AD, established the Nicene creed with the deity of Christ as its focal point and of one substance with the father as the key phrase.  In 380 AD Nicene (read Orthodox) Christianity is declared the official religion of the Empire.  In 381 at the 3rd Council of Constantinople the doctrine of the Trinity is established making Jesus and the holy spirit persons of the Godhead.  In 397 the Catholic church created the official canon of scripture at the Council of Carthage.  Augustine’s life was in the middle of all these events.

Augustine was raised a Christian by his Christian mother, Monnica.  His father, Patricius, was a small land owner who had a good position in the community. Patricius did not embrace Christianity until later in his life.

Though very smart and raised to be Christian, Augustine was a pretty wild kid. He ran with a crowd that lived totally in contrast to the Christianity around them.  In his book Confessions, Augustine describes how he and his mates pursued sex, boasting and reveling in it. In the same book he cites a misdeed of stealing pears from someone, and how the group reveled that they had gotten away with it not been caught. Condemnation from these misdeeds and more motivated Augustine for the rest of his life.

As a teenager he was sent to Madaura and then to Carthage for studies in Rhetoric. Rhetoric is the study of persuasive speech, and as Augustine’s persuasion extends to modern times, he excelled at it.

Again, Augustine’s path was not straight and true. He was raised a Christian, but later became a Ciceronian and then even later converted to Manicheism, a religion with Christian, Gnostic, and pagan elements. A Manichean who has known him at Rome stated that his mind was set on the great things that elevate the soul toward heaven.

“At Carthage Augustine experienced two conversions, first, circa 372, toward the undivided pursuit of wisdom through philosophy, and second, circa 373, as a means to that end, to the Manichaean interpretation of Christianity.”[iv] Augustine finally returned to Catholicism around 386 AD.

While studying Augustine took a concubine, and had a son.  He lived with the concubine for 14 years.

Williston Walker writes, “if this sensuous Augustine was thus early aroused, truth seeking Augustine was speedily awakened. When nineteen, the study of Cicero’s now almost completely lost Hortensius ‘changed my affections, and turned my prayers to Thyself, oh Lord’[v].  This imperfect conversion caused Augustine to desire to seek truth as that alone of value. He began to study the Scriptures, “but they appeared to me on worthy to be compared with the dignity of Cicero.”[vi] Augustine did not stay a Christian at this point. Instead he turned to Manichaeism and remained a Manichaean for nine years. Eventually he met a well respected Manichaean leader named Faustus which proved to be a turning point.

Faustus proved to be a disappointment, and Augustine’s commitment to Manichaeism waned. In 383 A.D. Augustine moved to Rome, and then in 384 he obtained a position as a teacher of rhetoric in Milan. In Milan Augustine met Ambrose, a powerful and eloquent preacher. Augustine was more impressed with the elegance with which Ambrose preached than the message. Nevertheless, Augustine began to follow Ambrose.

At the same time, Augustine’s mother, Monica, persuaded him to become betrothed to a person fit for his station. With regret Augustine dismissed his concubine but “entered on an even less credible relation with another. It was the low point of his moral life “[vii]

Augustine turned again to philosophy, this time Neoplatonism. Somehow he believed this philosophy showed him that the spiritual world and God were the only realities. The greatest blessing of life was to know God, and this new philosophy led him to accept Christianity. But it wasn’t necessarily the simple Christianity of the New Testament. Augustine was impressed with the authority of the Catholic Church as religion of the Empire.

Now, Augustine embraced Scripture. He literally heard a nearby child say “Take up and read” and he immediately opened a copy of the epistles that he had with him to read “not in rioting or drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying; but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof”.  This transformed him. He was converted. With that Augustine found peace and confidence that he had the power from God to change.

Augustine embraced Roman Catholicism as the path for living Christianity. Augustine wrote, “I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”[viii] He resigned his position and retired with friends to an estate named Cassisaicum to wait to be baptized and where he began debating with his friends his newfound Christianity. The debates were philosophical discussions along Neoplatonist lines, and at the same time Augustine began writing treatises.

From there he was baptized, later ordained to the priesthood, still later ordained Bishop of Hippo. “In Hippo he founded the first monastery for that portion of Africa and made it also a training school for the clergy.”[ix]

All along the way Augustine wrote, putting his training in rhetoric to use. He was a prolific writer, and much of it has survived to this day.

It’s important to me to see the mindset of Augustine. Here is a man, a privileged man who has the opportunity to embrace different philosophies, religions, and lifestyles before finally deciding that the religion of Roman Catholicism in North Africa in the late fourth century is the absolute way to go. Furthermore, here is a man that is a gifted communicator who used that communication skill to persuade as many people as he could to do likewise. I mean the man set up the first monastery/seminary for his part of the world. How more influential could anyone be?

Because of Augustine’s status as a Doctor of the Church and what that means, let’s take a minute and contrast Augustine’s path as a “man inspired by the Holy Spirit to formulate Christian doctrine”(the Roman Catholic Church’s definition of a Doctor of the Church) with the apostle Paul, the most prolific writer in the new Testament. Paul was instructed by the disciples, apostles, prophets, etc. of the first century. As an educated man, Paul certainly was familiar with philosophy, but his training was not Greek, but rather Jewish. Paul was certified as one who was led by the Holy Spirit as he was declared to be an apostle.

Augustine, on the other hand, was much more a product of the times he lived in. Furthermore, as we will see in studying some of his writings that are crucial to the promotion he received to become a Doctor of the Church, he was deeply influenced by both his personal indiscretions as well as the conflict between the different factions in the church to be, for example, highly puritanical in his approach to sex as well as other issues.

Look at this paragraph by WHC Frend regarding the religious and philosophical conflicts of Augustine’s time, “if Donatism suited the majority of Christians in North Africa, it’s insular and rigorous traditions had always been opposed by those who either sought (like Augustine) a synthesis between philosophy and Christianity, and those who were prepared to go further – to reject the Old Testament as the word of God and accept a mystical dualistic interpretation of Christianity. The Gnostics and Marcionites of the second and third centuries have largely been absorbed by the Manachees… In the 75 years since Diocletian’s rescript banning them, they have flourished in North Africa.”[x]

This paragraph again shows that Christianity at this point had gone away from the simple, Jewish based traditions that we see in the Old Testament, and for centuries had been merging with philosophy and the other traditions of Greek thinking as well as absorbing pagan culture in all of its forms. At the same time factions were rising that developed ascetic Christianities focusing on purity, denial, and legalism. And  Augustine was right in the middle of these transitions and conflicts. What Augustine did and wrote about after that clearly reflects these conflicts.

Nevertheless Augustine was a profound individual, and I believe a true believer.  In future posts we will examine his writings to see more about what he taught and its status as true Christian doctrine.

[i] [i] THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY, W.H.C. Frend, Fortress House, Philadelphia, 1984, p. 659

[ii] Ibid, p. 652

[iii] Ibid p. 653

[iv] THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY, W.H.C. Frend, Fortress House, Philadelphia, 1984, p. 660

[v] Confessions 3:4

[vi] A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, Williston Walker, Scribners, New York, 1959  p.161

[vii] ibid

[viii] Against the epistle of Manichaeus, 5

[ix] Ibid p. 162

[x] Ibid, p.661

12.95 Doctors of the Church

On September 20, 1295 Pope Boniface VIII named Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory the first “Doctors of the Church.”  This made official what had been accepted for centuries,  that these men were:

  • Great teachers who were
  • Inspired of the Holy Spirit and
  • were orthodox in what they taught

These were only the first. At last count there were 36 Doctors of the Church. Of these 17 were established before the great schism and so they are also recognized by the Eastern Orthodox Church although that church does not give them the same title. There are more being considered.  According to Catholic.org:

“This is a very special title accorded by the Church to certain saints. This title indicates that the writings and preachings of such a person are useful to Christians “in any age of the Church.” Such men and women are also particularly known for the depth of understanding and the orthodoxy of their theological teachings. While the writings of the Doctors are often considered inspired by the Holy Spirit; this does not mean they are infallible, but it does mean that they contributed significantly to the formulation of Christian teaching in at least one area.”[i]

What a unique categorization! Here we have the Roman Catholic Church designating that there are some writers whose writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit. How similar this is to the Scripture that says “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit”.

“knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit. (2Pe 1:20-21 ASV)

So what we have here with the naming of the title Doctor of the Church is similar to above scriptural proclamation of what defines Scripture, but there is a major difference. The difference is the writings of the doctors of the church are not considered infallible.

So what does that mean? How can a writing the inspired by the Holy Spirit yet fallible? What it looks like to me is that the Roman Catholic Church then gets to pick and choose which writings of these men (there is a woman who may possibly be named a Dr. of the Church) are infallible and orthodox, while they can discard some of the writers’ other writings that they don’t deem orthodox. It looks like a huge fudge factor for the Roman Catholic Church.

In the Old Testament and throughout the New Testament what has been taught is what it says in first Peter, that it was prophets who gave us the word of God. Notice that the definition above by Catholic.org does not say these men are defining the word of God, but rather that they are “contributing significantly to the formulation of Christian teaching”. My question is what is the difference between the word of God and Christian teaching? If these men are not New Testament prophets, apostles, teachers, in other words, (wo)men gifted by the spirit to minister the word, then who are they? Who gets to formulate Christian doctrine other than (wo)men who are gifted by the holy spirit to speak for God?

When we are looking at some of these men, these doctors of the church, we will be looking at whether what they wrote and helped to establish as Christian doctrine is really in line with what was written in the old and new Testaments, or whether it was a case of the church glorifying these men to pretty darn close to the status of prophets to reinforce teaching that doesn’t line up with the word of God.

Of special interest will be doctrines that many Protestant denominations include as Orthodox yet are found to be products of these Doctors of the Church.

[i] https://www.catholic.org/saints/doctors.php.  It should be noted that the date is a few years later on https://www.uscatholic.org/church/scripture-and-theology/2008/07/chronological-list-doctors-church.

Biblical references are from the ASV version unless otherwise noted.
Posts and articles © copyright Mark W Smith 2007 - 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Mark W Smith and OriginalChristianity.Net with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. You can reach Mark by emailing Mark at OriginalChristianity.net.

close to attraction

WordPress adaptation by Tara Aukerman | Original design by Andreas Viklund