THE HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH

Lecture 2: "Apostolic Fathers - 350 A.D."

 

This is Volume 3 on Church History, taking up the study of

the Apostolic Fathers and Ante-Nicene Fathers. As we've said in

our previous volume, the men who followed the ministry of the

apostles in Church History are called "Church Fathers." Now, the

title comes from them being the leaders of the church at this

time, throughout the persecution of the Christians in the next

three or four centuries. And these Church Fathers are divided

into three groups:

The Apostolic Fathers, whose lives overlapped the lives of

the apostles.

And then the Ante-Nicene Fathers, whose lives take place

between about, oh, 280 a.d. and the Council of Nicea in 325 a.d.

And then the Post-Nicene Fathers, whose lives take place

approximately afterward. We say "approximately" because, of

course, there are overlapping dates.

The Apostolic Fathers are generally given--you can check the

last lecture for this on their lives, in the last volume:

Clement of Rome, 30-100 a.d.

Ignatius, 50-115 a.d.

Epictetus, 50-120.

Patheus, 60-130.

Baselides sometimes, whose death is 138.

Polycarp, 69-155 a.d.

Also given sometimes, Justin Martyr, 100-165 a.d.

Now, the thing that's so significant about this study of the

Church Fathers is, in the study of the Church Fathers and their

writings--and some of them do leave writings--we begin to see and

find the first deviations from the word of God. When Paul writes

to the Christians in Corinth, he already warns about somebody

corrupting the word of God. And, if there's anything the devil

would be interested in, it would be trying to corrupt the word of

God. Along this line, it's interesting to note that no New

Testament Christian ever quotes the Apocrypha. What is the

Apocrypha? The Apocrypha is a collection of about 14 books--some

canonical registers giving seven, some giving nine, some giving

14--of books that are not found anywhere in the Old Testament and

are stuck between the Old Testament and New Testament in most

editions. But seven of these books were stuck into the Old

Testament and considered to be canonical--part of the Holy

Spirit's writing--by the Roman Catholic Church, officially voted

in at the Council of Trent in 1546 a.d. These books were supposed

to have been in wide circulation before the time of Christ. And

they are found included as part of the Old Testament in what we

call the Septuagint. The Septuagint, of course, is discussed

thoroughly in our book called The Christian's Handbook of

Manuscript Evidence.

No Christian in the New Testament ever quotes from the

Apocrypha. Attempts have been made by the scholars to prove that

the New Testament Christians quoted from the Septuagint. But this

was done to make you think they accepted the Septuagint as

authoritative and canonical when it had the Apocryphal books in

it! Anything but the truth!

Now, the truth of the matter is, where the scholars say the

New Testament people quoted the Septuagint, all they've done is

taken writings of the Old Testament found in Origen's works, and

the Septuagint manuscripts written in 330 a.d. and taken these

and lined them up with the New Testament so you'll think the

writer is quoting a Septuagint Old Testament.

Now, we wouldn't have time to go into all of this right in

this lecture, because this deals with the time that goes from 330

to 340, the Post-Nicene Fathers. But the devilment is started by

a man named Origen, who is an Ante-Nicene Father. And this

devilment lies simply in taking the Old Testament manuscripts and

rewriting them in Greek, so the quotations from the Greek New

Testament match the Old Testament. The proof of this lies in the

fact that there isn't one Septuagint manuscript available to

anybody, quoting an Old Testament quotation, that was written

before the completion of the New Testament.

So, in the Church Fathers, we find the beginning of

apostasy. And we find the beginnings of apostasy in their

literary works, by watching what books they quote and what books

they accept as canonical and non-canonical.

We also find in the first writings of these early Apostolic

Fathers certain expressions borrowed from Greek Gnostics and from

unscriptural sources which deny truths of Scripture. This is why

Martin Luther once said, in a fit of vehement rage, "Some of the

Church Fathers ought to be called the Church Babies! To blazes

with the Church Fathers! What saith the Scripture?"

It is interesting to note that when the Roman Catholic

Church wants to prove any doctrine contrary to Scripture, they

always appeal to a Church Father. I'll say it one more time.

Whenever the Roman Catholic wants to teach a doctrine that is

non-Scriptural, or against Scripture, they always appeal to a

Church Father.

The writings of the Church Fathers, then, make up for the

Roman Catholic the great body of superstitious folklore which we

call tradition. This includes not only the Church Fathers but the

teaching of the Councils. And you should review our remarks on

Councils in the last volume.

Clement of Rome

All right, the Apostolic Fathers begin by deviating from the

truth. The clearest example of this is the writings and teachings

of the so-called Clement of Rome, who is supposed to have written

two epistles. And these two epistles, by the way, are found in

the Greek New Testaments of the Greek manuscripts used for the

new bibles--although, of course, they have left them

untranslated--showing that we're not only dealing with apostasy

in the body of Christ these days, but blatant hypocrisy.

Now the First and Second Epistle of Clement, so-called, and

something he wrote, the Clementine Homilies, another group of

writings, are found connected with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the

source and authority for Bob Jones University faculty members.

Dr. Custer inserted a slip of paper into the graduate assistants'

boxes at the end of the year 1974, telling them that any man who

criticized Robertson and Machen and Warfield was blaspheming the

memory of the dead, and that the superior text was the

Alexandrian Roman Catholic text of the Septuagint and the

Hexapla.

Clement I of Rome (30-100 a.d.) was bishop of Rome, we

guess. The place of his birth is not known. He was one of the

earliest bishops of Rome, according to tradition, and may

possibly have been the Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians

4:3. At least the Roman Catholic Church would like to have you

think that. His epistle to the Corinthians, this is I and II

Clement, was written likely about a.d. 97, and is the oldest

specimen of post-Apostolic literature. That is, the first thing

you have after the completion of the New Testament is the Epistle

to the Corinthians, 97 a.d., by a bishop who was supposed to be a

bishop in Rome. It quotes profusely from the Old Testament and

has many references to Paul and Peter.

The scholars say of these writings they are valuable for

their information concerning the exalted position of the bishops

or elders in the church at the end of the first century. It is

valuable for its information concerning the "exalted position" of

bishops or elders in the church at the end of the first century.

Now, let's stop and think about that thing for a minute.

When Clement writes, it's true that he exalts the bishops and

exalts the elders. Does that prove that they were exalted? Does

that prove that they should be exalted? Doesn't that prove that

Clement has been deceived by the devil? You don't find them

exalted in the New Testament.

That isn't all. In Clement's writings, as in Papius'

writings, we find a mention of Simon Peter being at Rome. Now,

that's very odd. If you took the Living Bible it wouldn't be odd.

For the Living Bible has changed the word "Babylon" in 1 Peter 5

to Rome, in spite of the fact that there isn't a single Greek

manuscript in the universe that says "Rome." But Phillips and

Brother Taylor, who wrote the Phillips translation and the Living

Bible, are pro-Roman Catholic in their hatred for the King James

text. So they not only alter the King James text, but alter all

the Greek manuscripts, and say Peter was in Rome, 1 Peter 5.

You'd better know church history!

There's no evidence from the Bible that Peter ever was in

Rome. And the Bible is completed before church history proper

takes place.

For example, when Paul writes to the Christians in Rome

(Romans chapter 16), he is very careful not to mention Simon

Peter as ever having been there. As a matter of fact, if you read

Romans chapter 1, Romans chapter 15, you'll find that Peter

couldn't have been there, because Paul said he didn't want to

build on another man's foundation. That isn't all. When you find

Simon Peter in the Bible, he is dealing with the Jews of the

disperson in Asia Minor, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithinia, and

dealing with people who have already been saved and under the

ministry of Paul in Asia Minor, dealing with people in Babylon

and in Jerusalem up to Acts chapter 15, and nowhere do you find

him ever making a trip to Rome for anything.

Now this is very significant to say the least. The material

that says Peter was in Rome is based 100 percent on superstitious

folklore and legend. There isn't one indication in any Greek

manuscript for the New Testament or Hebrew for the Old Testament

that Peter ever came within 800 miles of Rome. Now, you need to

think about that a long time. Perhaps we should reduce that to

400 miles of Rome in case Peter got up into Asia Minor. But the

closest Simon Peter ever got to Rome, according to the New

Testament, is Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithinia.

Now, this is a heresy. If you want to get the heresy

corrected, you should read the material on the location of

Peter's tomb in Rome--first, the editions put out by the Roman

Catholic Church, which is a comic relief from the ordinary

drudgery of routine, and then the work by Peterson on Simon

Peter's Burial up there near Bethany, where they found the casket

and the name. Now, this heresy that Peter is in Rome in first

mentioned in the Clementine writings. And Papius mentions it, and

some others. And this is pure tradition, of which you were warned

against in Colossians 2, verse 8.

Somebody said, "Are you trying to say that all tradition is

not true?" No, we're not saying that at all. We're saying where

any tradition clearly contradicts the word of God, you can throw

it out. And the word of God is very clear; the Epistle to the

Romans is not written by Simon Peter; it's written by Paul.

Somebody said, "You are robbing Peter to pay Paul." No, God

robbed Peter to pay Paul. Any reader of the New Testament can

tell that it's Simon Peter from Acts 1 to Acts 15, and after that

it's Paul. Any reader of the New Testament in Galatians chapter 2

knows that Paul had to straighten Peter out on his doctrines. Any

reader of the New Testament knows that Simon Peter was a married

pope if he was a pope (Matthew chapter 8), with a mother-in-law

(chapter 8). Anybody who reads the New Testament knows that Simon

Peter was a cussing, Jewish, circumcised, pork-abstaining

commercial fisherman.

In London, you'll find St. Paul's, indicating somebody moved

toward the Pauline epistles and Protestant Christianity. In Rome,

you'll find St. Peter's, indicating somebody tried to get you

back under the Judaistic laws that dealt with circumcised Jewish

fishermen. Now, that's something to think about.

Clement is called the first Bishop of Rome. As to whether or

not he was the Bishop of Rome is pure conjecture. When we say

"Bishop," of course, we mean pastor or elder. And at this time a

pastor or elder of Rome would have been practically nothing, for

at this time coming up into 100, Trajan the emperor takes over

(98), and don't you think for a minute that a bishop of Rome in

those days had enough authority to go to the emperor and ask for

a favor! The bishop of Rome back in those days, and the days of

Peter and Paul, was a persecuted, harassed, Bible-believing

evangelist. He wasn't sitting around in a golden dias in a golden

basilica, with the emperor coming around saying, "Holy Papa, will

you please tell me what to do about the war in Spain?" "Is there

rain in Spain to the main? Or is it plain?"

So, we have Clement of Rome.

Ignatius

Now, the next man who shows up is Ignatius. We're being

critical of these men for the purpose of pointing out apostasy

from the word of God. We're not saying they weren't good men.

We're not saying they weren't godly men. We're not saying they

weren't better men than we are in many ways. What we're saying

is, when it comes to fidelity for the truth, you have to watch

your step! A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

What we say about Clement is, number one, his Epistle to the

Corinthians is not a Scriptural work. His Epistle to the

Corinthians, which I've read, Clement I and Clement II, denies

much of the New Testament in regards to salvation. It uses terms

that deny the premillennial coming of Christ. And it puts an

emphasis in places where neither Corinthian epistle Paul wrote

puts an emphasis. And it exalts the bishops and elders to a place

and a place of prominence that the New Testament does not give

them. In the New Testament, Christ said, "You know that they that

are great among the Gentiles are the leaders, and exercise

lordship and authority over them. But it shall not be so among

you!" Now, you know that! Paul's favorite expression for himself

was "a douas," "a slave or servant of Jesus Christ." "The Son of

man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and give His

life as a ransom for many." Any document that gives an exalted

place to the bishop or elder is a satanic document. I don't care

if General William Booth or R.A. Torrey wrote it. It's not

Scriptural. It's contrary to the word of God.

Then, the first bit of leaven begins to come in just as soon

as the New Testament is complete. And Paul mentions a corrupting

process going on while it is being written.

The next man is Ignatius. And this Ignatius is not bishop of

Rome, but bishop of Antioch. We can expect something from this

Ignatius. For, if you remember your Bible, which is the true

interpreter of history, the Bible says the disciples were first

called Christians at Antioch. This is Antioch of Syria--north of

Palestine. This is the place where the first missionary trip was

originated (Acts chapter 13), where the disciples were first

called Christians (Acts chapter 11), and where the first

missionary translation of the Bible into old Latin for north

Africa, and Syriac for Syria, were made. ANTIOCH. Ignatius was

probably a native of Syria, a pupil of the Apostle John. And he

was the second or the third bishop of the church of Antioch in

Syria, in the closing years of the first century and the early

years of the second.

We know very little bit about Ignatius, except what he tells

us in fifteen letters that are ascribed to him. He governed the

church with care. He was a "devout son of the church." This is a

very interesting expression. A "devout son of the church"? Where

did you read in your Bible that anybody who was saved was a "son

of the church"? Doesn't that strike you as rather odd? You say,

"Ruckman, you're being hypercritical!" Oh, no! No! I am a Bible

believer. And I'm not going to accept the word of any "great,

goodly, godly, dedicated, Spirit-filled, independent, missionary,

premillennial, soul-winning, fundamental" perverter of the word

of God! I don't read in my Bible where I'm a "son of the church."

I read that new Jerusalem, which is above, is free, which is the

"mother of us all" (Galatians chapter 4). I am a son of God (John

1). I'm a child that's been produced by New Jerusalem, and the

Holy Spirit has given me a new birth. But a son of the church?

Tsk, tsk, tsk! My, my!

Ol' Ignatius hasn't been too careful in some of his letters-

-but careful enough for the Roman Catholic Church to use it. He

loved Christ supremely and honored Him as God Incarnate. So

Ignatius is a fundamentalist; he believes in the deity of Jesus

Christ--exactly like Satan believes in it! Now, I didn't say that

to make you suspect Ignatius. I said that to make you think. And,

if there ever was a time when a Christian needs to think,

brother, it's now. He spoke of Christ as the "Godman." Ignatius

had a positive part in the development of the episcopacy. The

"episcopacy" simply means the governmental hierarchy of the

church. And he was perhaps the first to use the term "Catholic

Church." There's where the term came from. There isn't one

Catholic in your home town who knows where that word came from.

Stop the first 35,000 Catholics you meet in the street, and ask

them where the term "Catholic" came from, and they couldn't tell

you on a pile of bodies of St. Francis.

You say, "Why'd you say 'bodies'?" Oh, they've got "four"

heads of John the Baptist in Europe. Luther asked one monk one

time, "You got one skull up here one place, and one skull in

another, and one's bigger than the other. Which one is John the

Baptist?"

And the priest said, "Well, the little one is when he was a

boy."

Church history is not without its humor!

All right, the first time the word "Catholic" occurs is not

in the Bible. The first time it occurs, it occurs in the mouth of

a godly, dedicated man who loved the Lord so much that he said,

"I would rather die for Christ than rule the whole earth. Lead me

to the beasts, that I may by them be partaker of God." He was

thrown to the wild beasts in the Colisseum at Rome and was eaten

by the lions.

Now, who could find fault with such a godly, dedicated man?

Not me! But I'll tell you something. Where they undertake to

correct the word of God, I go the other way. And if you're a

Bible believer, you'd better go the other way.

Follow his example in loving Christ. Amen! Follow his

example in believing that Christ was God incarnate. Amen! Follow

his example in being willing to die for Christ. Amen! But when it

comes to talking about the Catholic Church, go roast a weenie!

Now, do you see where we're headed? Do you get the

orientation yet? You're either going to believe that Book, or you

are not going to believe that Book, and the people who are going

to turn you from that Book are going to be people who love Christ

enough to die for Him! They're not sinless! They all have old

natures! Don't you get that?

Then the first signs of departure from the New Testament

deal with the concept of the church. And the first departures put

the bishop and elder into a place of authority he has no business

in. Then they begin to call the Christian a "son of the church"

instead of a "son of God." Then the church hierarchy begins to be

referred to as a "Catholic" church. And this is where the

devilment begins! It begins, if you please, with the Church

Fathers. And in this case, of course, it begins with the

Apostolic Church Fathers, the Church Fathers whose lives overlap

the lives of the Apostles.

Epictetus

The next man is--I never could pronounce it--Epictetus (50-

120), a Greek Stoic philosopher. Early life, a slave of Rome,

then a free man under Nero. He studied and taught and wrote Stoic

philosophy. In 90 a.d. when Domitian--that's a Roman emperor,

whom we'll study later--banished the philosophers, Epictetus

settled at Necopolis and Nepuris, where he died. Some of his

moral writings bore similarity to those of the Christians,

perhaps influencing or being influenced by Christian thought. He

made virtue the purpose of the end of his life. He said man's

will is divine; hence, man is ruled by fate. He converted the

emperor Marcus Aurelius to the Stoic philosophy. So Epictetus, as

he stands, could not really be classified as a true Church

Father. However, there are some who include him in the list,

because of his writings bearing resemblance to Christian

writings. He's normally not included in the list.

Papius

Then we have Papius. Papius (60-130)--and dates on the birth

and death of all these vary, because the records on them are not

too clear. Papius is the bishop of Hieropolis. Papius is thought

to have been a disciple of the Apostle John. Some people think he

was a friend of Polycarp. And he was bishop of Hieropolis in

Phrygia, which is in Asia Minor. He was a pious and devout man, a

learned student of the Scripture. He seems to have written--it's

all tradition, legend--an exposition of the Lord's oracles.

Unfortunately, this manuscript has been lost since 1218, and it

is only through the writings of Iranaeus and Eusebius that we

know anything about it. About all we know of his theology is that

he held millennarian views. When they say "millennarian," they

mean simply that he was a premillennialist and believed that

Christ was coming back to set up the Kingdom upon this earth.

Where Papius believed that, fine, excellent! Where Papius

taught that Christ was born in a cave--did you ever hear that one

before?--scratch him! Where Papius believed that John the Apostle

did not write the Book of Revelation, but that an unknown

agnostic, Q-mark-X "missing link" "elder" wrote it, scratch him!

Did you ever hear that one?

As a matter of fact, if we study church history, if we

encompass the first four centuries of church history, we're

thoroughly prepared to overthrow the scholarship of any godly,

dedicated man who denies the word of God. There's nothing new

under the sun, and every damnable, hellish, blasphemous thing

pulled to overthrow the authority of the word was pulled off

before the Council of Nicea. And, if you study church history and

pay attention to it, you'll be forewarned and forearmed, and

you'll know where you're at. As we said in the first lecture, if

there's one thing in the world a Christian should know, he should

know where he's at.

Basilides

Now, Basilides is not usually given as a Church Father in

most lists because Basilides had a reputation as being a Gnostic,

a man well versed in Greek and Jewish and Alexandrian philosophy

and Egyptian theosophy--although some lists include him.

Basilides, of course, could not be called a real Church

Father because he taught, among other things, that Christ was

human only in appearance, and although He suffered He did not die

on the cross. He said that Simon of Cyrene was crucified in His

stead. Not a very good Church Father. Usually given as an

agnostic. He said the minds of all other people are shrouded in

eternal night, and the night of ignorance, and that Christ alone

was free from ignorance. His system, like the other Gnostic

systems, grew out of the endeavor to explain the problems of God

and the world, and of good and evil. Not usually given as a

Church Father, but sometimes some lists include him.

Polycarp

Then we have Polycarp. Polycarp is a dear and precious soul,

a man who loved the Lord enough to die for him, being burned for

the sake of Christ. And Polycarp's dates--and there may be

variation on the date, of course, in any of these--are about 69

to 155 a.d. He was a disciple of the Apostle John and a friend of

Ignatius, and a teacher of Popimus and Irenaeus. Born in Smyrna,

which, of course, is on the west coast of Asia Minor.

You'll notice that our first two men, Polycarp and Ignatius,

who die for Jesus Christ, have an intimate acquaintance with

John. Hence, if we want to find Scriptural Apostolic succession,

we're going to find it more closely with somebody connected with

Asia Minor and Antioch and the Gospel of John than somebody

connected with Simon Peter and Matthew and Mark. Did you notice

that? Simon Peter's connections are with Jerusalem and with

Babylon. Paul's connections are with Antioch and Asia Minor. The

connection of the Apostle John is Asia Minor; he was exiled at

Patmos, right off the coast of Smyrna. And Ignatius and Polycarp

are connected with John. Naturally, their approach toward

Christianity is going to be more Biblical than anybody at Rome,

like Peter--if he was there, which he wasn't--or Alexandria, with

Mark--if he was there, which he probably wasn't.

Polycarp is a Church Father, born at Smyrna. He's a definite

link between first and second century Christianity. We have one

letter by Polycarp, a letter to the Philippian church. Later in

his bishop's work, Polycarp is said to have made a trip to Rome--

that's legend--apparently to discuss some matters of theological

and ecclesiastical nature with Anacletus, the bishop of Rome--

another guesswork. Writings and life breathe a spirit of deep

devotion. About 155, in the reign of Antonius Pius, when a local

persecution was taking place in Smyrna and several of his members

had been martyred, he was singled out as the leader of the church

and marked for martyrdom. When asked to recant--that's to deny

what he believes and live--he is reputed to have said, "Eighty

and six years have I served Him, and He hath done me no wrong.

How can I speak evil of my King who saved me?" He was burned at

the stake, dying an heroic martyr for his faith.

Polycarp's only mistake, as far as we can find in his

writings, is referring to the church as "the mother of us all." I

believe he worded the thing as "the faith is the mother of us

all." That was his quotation. A rather unfortunate quotation,

because "the faith" is not the mother of anybody! As a matter of

fact, no man knows anything about "the faith" until he's saved.

"The faith" doesn't give birth to the child of God. The born-

again child of God accepts "the faith."

You say, "That's a little thing!" It's enough to set up the

Roman Catholic Church and lead 400 million people to hell! Did

you ever hear these fellows talking about "the Catholic faith"? I

remember my old priest saying to me, "All those people down in

the French quarter of New Orleans, there a little bit immoral,

But they kept the old faith." See that expression, "the faith"?

"The faith"?

Every non-Scriptural heresy taught by the Roman church is

based on the writings of a Church Father--which is why Martin

Luther said justifiably, "Some of the Church Fathers should have

been called the 'Church Babies.'" And there's a lot of truth in

that.

You see, the apostasy begins here. When we talk about

apostasy, we're talking about apostasy within the body of born-

again, saved, fundamental people. We're not talking about people

professing something they don't believe, and pretending to

profess it, and then later falling away from something they never

had. We're not coming down those lines.

Justin Martyr

All right, the last man, sometimes called an "Ante-Nicene

Father" but sometimes Apostolic, is Justin Martyr, 100-165 a.d. A

philosopher (Colossians 2:8) and martyr, born at Flavia Neopolis

in Samaria of heathen parents. He was well educated. Seems to

have had proficient means to lead a life by study and travel. He

studied Stoicism, Pythagoras' works, Platonism, Aritotelianism.

But he hated Epicureanism. And all that stuff just means this; it

means he's hard and tough and believes in living a good life.

That's all that means. You'll find the Stoics and the Epicureans

in Acts chapter 17. These two philosophies were (1) Stoic, tough

upper-lip, Zeno, "keep it up"; and (2) Epicureanism was "eat,

drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you're going to kick the

bucket."

Now, I realize that's an extreme over-simplification, but

this is a study on Church History, not Greek foolishness.

Then Platonism appealed the most to him, and he thought he

was about to reach the goal of his philosophy. But one day, in a

solitary walk on the seashore, he was witnessed to by an old

Christian, and that Christian shook his confidence and pointed

out to him that men more ancient than the Greek philosophers

wrote the Old Testament. Following the advice of the old

gentleman, Justin Martyr began to read the Old Testament and the

New Testament, and became a believing Christian.

He said, "I found this philosophy alone to be safe and

profitable." After his conversion, he devoted himself to the

vindication and spread of the Christian religion, with the

conviction that Christianity is the oldest, truest, and most

divine of philosophies. He continued to wear his "philosophers'

robes" (Colossians 2:8) and went about as an evangelist and

missionary. He spent some time in Rome and dealt with a Gnostic

named Marcian, whom we'll talk about later, and dealt with a Jew

named Trypho, and wrote to him about the Christian faith. He was

finally seized, scourged and beheaded in 166. He wrote one set of

apologies--a defense of the Christian faith called Apologies, and

another set called Dialogues--to justify his work.

And he said in his work that a man is regenerated when he's

sprinkled with water. You see how it goes?

Irenaeus

The next man to take this up is a man named Irenaeus. If you

want to find the roots of baptismal regeneration, they're not

found anywhere in the Old or New Testaments. If you want to find

the roots of baptismal regeneration, they are found in the

writings of the Apostolic Fathers. And everything that this bunch

of heretics have ever done to overthrow the New Testament, they

got by tradition, philosophy, or science--and you can bet your

bottom dollar on it.

The Epistle to Clement, Number Two, on the authority of

Eusebius, teaches that Christians should be compared to the

Levites for their ministry--which is entirely incorrect--and that

Christ was not the image of God, but the reflection of God.

So, you will find in the new bibles in Hebrews chapter 1,

the "express image of God" changed.

In the writings of others, like The Teaching of the Twelve,

what we call the Didache, you will find baptismal regeneration

taught. In the Epistle of Barnabas, which we'll talk about later,

you'll find baptismal regeneration taught. And on and on and on

and on.

We're not talking about unsaved people professing to have

something they don't have. We're talking about apostasy among

people who shed their blood for Jesus Christ. What could be more

foolish or more ridiculous or more stupid than somebody like John

R. Rice, or any of his friends, or Bob Jones III or any of his

friends, justifying the alteration and attack on the word of God

on the grounds that "other godly men did it too"?

St. Francis of Assisi was one of the most godly, separated,

holy men who ever lived. And, when it comes to the matter of

Biblical doctrine, you'd do well not to follow him across the

street.

So we have the first signs of apostasy in the body of Christ

showing up in the Church Fathers. And the question comes up,

"What were the mass of Christians doing at this time?"

You see, we get into this peculiar situation where the

writers are going to study the writers. What about the millions

of Christians who never wrote anything? What where they doing?

First, second, and third and fourth century Christianity has

been judged by the writers. That's very dangerous! Millions of

Christians wrote nothing. But scholars tend to honor scholars and

recognize scholars who recognize scholars who recognize each

other. I read the other day in Faith Magazine that a professor at

Bob Jones University was a "recognized scholar." Any fool can be

a recognized scholar! All he has to do is alter the King James.

They'll recognize him immediately! All a man has to do to be a

recognized scholar is spend time correcting the King James. He'll

be recognized. The devil will give him a crown so he can reign

now!

Now this baptismal regeneration, plus faith being "the

mother of us all," plus the "son of the church," plus the word

"Catholic," have been incorporated by the Roman Catholic Church

to give the root of Roman Catholic tradition. And, if you want to

know where the roots of Roman Catholicism start, they are found

nowhere in either Testament unless they're found back in the Book

of Judges, where a priest is called a "father" and sets up image

worship in a house, and idolatry, and is given his room and board

to act as a priest for a family he had no business acting as

priest to. You will find this information in Judges chapter 17,

and Judges chapter 18. Judges 17 and Judges 18.

The roots of Roman Catholicism lie in the pagan, Babylonian

mystery religions. And, to prove this, every Christian should

acquaint himself with The Two Babylons by Hislop. The Two

Babylons by Alexander Hislop, where the evidence is documented.

The roots are found back far beyond the time of Christ. As a

matter of fact, they are found clear back to the time of the

Egyptian priesthood before the time of Moses, and the time of

Abraham coming out of Ur of the Chaldees. This material is well

documented in the books by Paul Blanchard and Alexander Hislop,

and can be traced.

However, the conversion of the mystery Babylonian, pagan

Roman and Greek and Egyptian "mystery religions" to Christianity

begins with the Church Fathers. And one of the first things they

get in there is the "initiatory rite that initiates the man into

the mysteries"--sprinkling water. You'll not find it in the New

Testament; it's not there. Christ comes up out of the water

(Matthew 3). The Ethiopian eunuch goes down into the water (Acts

chapter 8). Baptism is said to be a picture of death, burial, and

resurrection (Romans 6), of drowning under the wrath of God (1

Peter chapter 3). Sprinkling is out of the question. With the

King James text, it's out of the question.

And the nitty-picking some Baptists find fault with the King

James because it will not emphasize immersion by translating the

word is beside the point. It isn't found there with the word

translated or untranslated. It begins with the Church Fathers--in

particular, Justin Martyr, Origen (who comes along a little bit

later), and Irenaeus, who is sometimes given as an Apostolic

Father, although he comes along a little bit late to get into the

act. And we usually include him with the Ante-Nicene Fathers

(130-202), the bishop of Lyons, France.

Now, here we conclude our study of the word and ministry of

the Apostolic Church Fathers. The Apostolic Church Fathers are

good men. Many of them are martyrs, and many of them write things

that are true and Scriptural. But in their writings are found the

seed plot for the great mother whore of Revelation 17, that great

herbal monstrosity of Matthew 13 that the fowls of the air come

and lodge in the branches, that great mother who picks up the

leaven and puts it in the lump until the whole lump is leavened

(Matthew 13). And you were warned about this in the Bible over

and over and over and over and over and over again.

And if you want to know why anybody calls themselves

"Catholic" in 1991, it's because of Ignatius, 115 a.d. If you

want to know why somebody talks about "Holy Mother Church" and

"the faith," you'll have to go to Polycarp (155 a.d.). And if you

want to know why some people are counting on their sprinkling as

babies to get them to Heaven, you'll have to go back to 100 a.d.,

Justin Martyr, and Iranaeus, and those people, who perverted the

living word of the living God--although they loved Christ enough

to die for Him.

Their emotional and spiritual life was correct. Their old

nature refused to submit itself to the word of God where it dealt

with terminology, organization, theology, and doctrine. And so

we're going to follow their example where they are right, and

where their example is wrong, we're not going to follow it thirty

feet.

Ebionites

At this time coming up in church history, up to about the

end of the first century, in 130 and 150, we have some

interesting groups arising in church history. The first of these

groups are what we call the Ebionites.

And although the Ebionites did not get much publicity until

the second or third century, their beginnings come at about the

time of the completion of the New Testament. To be very brief

about it, an Ebionite is a man who believes that James is to be

followed instead of Romans; and, in particular, that Matthew is

to be followed instead of John. Now, these groups are called

Ebionites in the second century. To them, Jesus was the son of

Joseph and Mary, and so completely fulfilled the Jewish law that

God chose Him to be the Messiah. He improved and added to the

law, and would come again to found a Messianic kingdom for the

Jews.

Now, the thing in that business is this. The Ebionite

doesn't outright deny the virgin birth, I mean, just in so many

words. But he would call it more a "divine conception." The

Ebionite was fixed up so that he believed that God kind of

reacted with Joseph when Christ was born. So that, although He

was not virgin born, He was still "divinely conceived."

There are a number of ways to handle that thing. But what it

was was an emphasis on Matthew, Mark, and Luke--the earthly

Jewish life of a man who is trying to get to Heaven by good

works, and He sort of earned His salvation--rather than God

manifest in the flesh, God incarnate in the flesh, and becoming

man to die for sins. It was sort of a combination of faith and

works, which we find in James. And the Ebionites varied among

themselves to an outright denial of the deity of Christ, to those

who professed to believe in the deity but thought you had to have

a little bit of works to go along with it, to kind of "help

things out."

And this group begins the first in a series of groups in

Christianity of an ecumenical movement, where people begin to

join the Christian group who begin to mix works and faith

together in what we call a legalistic situation, or a Judaistic

situation. And these people can always be spotted by the fact

that they do not accept the Pauline epistles as inspired. They

accept the Pauline epistles as Paul's interpretation of Christ,

and the Gospel of John as Johannine literature that interprets

Christ. But they will not accept the doctrinal truth of the

Gospel of John and Romans and Galatians about Christ, but accept,

rather, the historical account of a "revolutionary" in Matthew,

Mark, and Luke, who brought about some good things.

The Ebionite is present with us today and is very manifest

in the National Council of Churches in a number of ways.

By the year 100, Christianity was strongly represented in

Asia Minor and Syria. It was also found in Macedonia, Greece, and

Rome, and probably also in Egypt. It extended very slightly, if

at all, to the more western portion of the empire. Asia Minor was

more extensively Christianized than any other land, because of

Paul's ministry. And in 111 to 113, Pliny, the governor of

Bithynia, could report to Trajan, the Roman emperor, that it was

affecting the older temple worship. It was strongly missionary in

spirit and constantly extending. Common Christianity was far from

representing or even understanding the theological doctrines.

Common Christianity moved in a much simpler range of thought.

Profoundly loyal to Christ, it conceived of Him primarily as the

divine Revealer of the knowledge of the true God, a proclaimer of

a new law of simple, lofty, and strenuous morality. And it

regarded its jobs to be, primarily, convert and proselyte and win

people to Jesus Christ.

This, of course, accounts for the apostasy, by the fact that

the average writer or historian, in writing about early

Christianity, is going by the opinions primarily of the authors

and putting an undue emphasis or weight of emphasis upon the

writing portion of Christianity--and not a great enough emphasis

on the witnessing part of Christianity. And we'll talk about this

later in our fourth volume on church history that deals with the

ante-Nicene father.

Now suffice it to say here that, during the first century

and second century of church history, the heroes are martyrs.

They don't write anything. They're eaten by the lions. They're

sowed in leather bags with snakes and thrown into the river.

Their heads are cut off. They're burned alive. They're roasted on

gridirons. They're put on the rack, and their limbs are pulled

from them. They're smoked to death and suffocated to death and

stung to death with bees. They light the palace gardens at Rome

by being soaked with tar and pitch and being set fire.

And every child of God should acquaint himself with the

literature edited by Forbush, Foxe's Book of Martyrs, to see what

happened to the real, true, Biblical line of witnessing

Christianity.

This concludes our third study on church history, Volume

Number 3. In our fourth study, we'll take up a study of the Ante-

Nicean Church Fathers, and the times that took place between the

year 200 and the year 325 a.d.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, on this next volume, volume chapter 4 in church

history, we take up a study of a little bit later progress in the

history of the Christian church, the times that deal with Ante-

Nicene Fathers, roughly from around 150 or 200 up to 325 a.d. By

this time the Ebionites are well at work, trying to get the

Christian into Matthew and James and get him out of Romans and

Galatians.

By this time another group has sprung up called the

Montanists, which is a pre-millennial group that has a little

Holiness tinged to them. They tend to lean toward the tongues

movement and the gift of prophecy, but they're sound on the

Second Coming of Christ, premillennial--which is more than you

can say, of course, for Justin or Jerome or J. Gresham Machen or

Warfield or Dr. A.T. Robertson. At least they had enough sense to

believe the Old Testament, and were premillennial in their faith.

We come along to this group of Church Fathers, and this

group of Church Fathers can roughly be outlined. First of all,

Justin Martyr overlaps the Apostolic group. And then we have

Irenaeus, 130-202. We have Clement of Alexandria. Not Clement of

Rome, but Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 a.d. You understand the

term "a.d." means anno domini, not "after death." b.c. refers to

"before Christ;" "a.d." is anno domini, "in the year of our

Lord," dating also from the birth of Christ. The term 70 a.d. is

not dated from 70 years after the death of Christ, but 70 years

after the birth--"anno domini," a--point--d--point.

Clement of Alexandria (150-215), Tertullian (160-220 a.d.),

Hippolytus (170-236), and Origen, the most famous Father of them

all (184-254 a.d.). There may be some overlap, but of course

these are the main ones.

Now, throughout this period of church history, the Roman

Catholic Church is gaining ground by accumulating the writings of

the Fathers and the teachings of the Fathers, and the traditions,

and superimposing them over Scripture. The big bamboozle at this

time, of course, is accepting a man's word on a thing because

he's "godly," or because he's educated. The educated men, of

course, are men like Justin Martyr and Tertullian and Origen, who

pervert the word of God and are followed because of their

scholastic learning and the time they spent studying. And the men

who were followed because they loved Christ enough to die for

Him, men like Justin Martyr and Ignatius and Polycarp, are

followed because of their zeal for Christ.

After all, the best way to get the man to reject the word of

God is give him a good reason for doing so. And, rejection of the

word of God and overwriting has always been based upon something

good. Gullible, naive scholars to today, like Archer Weniger and

Kenneth Wuest and Thieme and other gullible people assume--and

it's strict assumption--they assume that, if the person is godly,

dedicated, and thoroughly learned and thoroughly studied, that he

can correct the word of God on the grounds that he is qualified

to do it.

Somewhere or another, it seemed to escape the notice of all

these gentlemen that when Eve first sinned, her motive for

sinning was good threefold. If you read the account in Genesis

chapter 3, you'll find there wasn't one bad thing presented to

her in disobeying the word of God. Look at it! The motive was

good throughout. We're not saying these men's motives were bad.

We're just saying the devil messed them up just as bad as he

messed up Eve.

After all, when the devil came to her, didn't he say, "Yea,

hath God said?" Wasn't the question a matter of authority? Then

if you want a man to reject the authority of God, wouldn't you

have to give him a pretty good motive? He gave Eve a good motive.

And a true motive! He said, "Your eyes will be opened"--and they

were! "And you'll know good and evil"--which she did!

After all, the best way to get a man to reject the word of

God is appeal to his heart and give him a good motive for doing

it. He'll bite at that every time, just about.

So when you see these centuries go by, that when the devil

wants to get the Christian to override the word of God, he'll

always appeal to a man who is a "good, godly, dedicated man" to

do it! Why would he appeal to a heretic, or an infidel? That

wouldn't impress anybody!

So, during the first two or three centuries of church

history, a body of legend and doctrine and tradition begins to

build up along the lines that the martyrs, who die for Christ,

are more authoritative than the word of God. So you can trust

what the martyrs said and did as your guide, instead of what God

said. And that body of tradition that builds up to the Ante-

Nicene Fathers comes to complete fruition at the Council of Nicea

in 325 a.d., where a bunch of Christians get together and decide

what orthodoxy is. And, when they decide what orthodoxy is, they

leave out the two most important orthodox statements. One, a

statement on the premillennial coming of Jesus Christ to reign on

this earth, which makes up more than three-quarters of the Bible;

and the gospel commission, the imperative to win people to Jesus

Christ.

Bob Jones has given you the gospel imperative to evangelize,

but ignored the other. That is, they're half right.

Now, we get into the the Nicene Fathers--the Ante-Nicene and

Post-Nicene. "Ante" meaning "before," "post-Nicene" meaning

"afterward." And by this time a considerable body of opposition

has arisen to the word of God, and a considerable body of Greek-

educated people are fouling up the body of Christ and getting

them to argue about doctrinal matters, so they'll get off

practical matters.

Tatian

Along about this same time in church history, we have a

number of very interesting characters showing up, which should be

studied. The first of these is a man named Tatian, a Christian

apologist who is alive somewhere around 140, 150 and 160. The

date of his birth and death are unknown. But both are within the

early second century. He was born in Assyria, east of the Tigris,

and received a good education in Greek. He stumbled upon the Holy

Scriptures and was won to the Christian faith. He became a pupil

or disciple of Justin Martyr, and a teacher. He wrote a harmony

of the Gospels called Tatian's Diatessaron, which is a harmony of

the Gospels, a lining up of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

together.

After Justin's death, he became involved in the study of

esoteric questions and philosophies and deviated from the

orthodox faith. That is, according to Catholic tradition, he

deviated from the faith. He held to the Gnostic teaching that the

Demiurge was evil and in opposition to the true God. We don't

have time to go into that, but the Gnostic teaching was that of

the Greek-Alexandrian "knowers," or fellows who professed to have

higher through a diaimon, which is why the King James translated

"devil," which is a proper translation, and did not leave it

transliterated "demon," as it's found in the new bibles. And the

Gnostic teaching was that a "demi-urge"--that is, a lesser or

lower God--made the creation. The "proof" that Tatian believed

this is found nowhere except in the imagination of the Roman

Catholic Church. We read about Tatian, according to tradition,

that he made the Old Testament to oppose the New Testament.

I've read all the literature on Tatian, and never found

that. That's a very interesting conjecture.

And the reason for putting Tatian in with the heretics is

very apparent to a student of manuscript evidence. And I'll tell

you why. Tatian, a Syrian, when he wrote his Diatesseron, had a

King James text before him in 150 a.d. I find that very

interesting, don't you? I have a copy of Tatian's Diatesseron

here in the Works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Philip

Schaff. And the reading in John 9:35 matches the King James. It

doesn't match the ASV or the New ASV. The reading in Luke 2:33

matches the King James--not the ASV or the New ASV. Tatian

evidently had a King James Bible 180 years before the Greek

manuscripts were written that are recommended by Bob Jones and

Tennessee Temple and Midwestern and Pensacola Christian College.

Don't you find that interesting, as the Germans say? VEDDDY

INTEDDDESTING!

So we have Tatian.

Marcian, Valentius, Basilides

Then we have another man coming up called Marcion and

Valentis and Basilides. These men are grouped together under a

group we call "Gnostics." A Gnostic was a "knower," literally,

the word coming from the Greek word "gnosis, gnosco." A Gnostic

was simply a man who professed to have superior knowledge to the

average man, and thought the secret of correct interpretation of

the Bible lay in Christian education--or at least pagan Greek

education. They varied. However, they all agreed that education

was the final authority. And these men are numerous; we won't

take time to study all of them. Among them are Basilides,

Valentius, and others, and their systems vary. They have

disagreements between themselves as to what a Gnostic should be

and what a Gnostic should not be. They have a number of systems.

Basically, they all agree that matter is evil. That is,

material is evil, and it has to be spiritual to be good.

Basilides, about 138, was one of the most celebrated of the

Gnostics, born in Alexandria, Egypt, a man well-versed in Greek

and Jewish Alexandrian philosophy and Egyptian theosophy. He

appeared in Alexandria as a religious leader about 133 a.d. He

claimed to have been a pupil of the apostle Matthias and an

interpreter of Peter--not Paul. Showing up in Alexandria, Egypt,

where the North African Latin Church came from, he puts the

emphasis on Peter's teaching. His system, like other Gnostic

systems, grew out of the endeavor to explain the problems of good

and evil.

And the idea is, matter must be bad and the spirit must be

good, which is an error, because there are unclean spirits. And,

among other things that came from this system of Gnosticism, was

the teaching that Christ could not have been a material, physical

being, since material, physical being is evil. Therefore, He was

only a spirit being and not a true man. Some of the Gnostics

might grant that He was the Son of God, but none of them would

grant that He was the Son of man in the literal, physical,

material sense--which of course He was and could not have been

tempted as a man unless He was a man.

Cyrinthus

Then we have others coming in. We have Cyrinthus, an early

Gnostic leader in the second half of the first century, born in

Egypt, of Jewish descent, and studied in Alexandria.

Now things are beginning to take a shape. The shape they're

beginning to take is this. They're beginning to come out Rome,

Antioch, and Alexandria. In our study of church history, we begin

to see some observable trends. And these trends are consistent

throughout subsequent studies. We observe that activity that

begins around Antioch and Syria--Tatian was a Syrian--matches the

King James Textus Receptus and the history of Apostolic

succession, true Christianity and revival. Although some of the

Church Fathers do make mistakes, and when they deviate from the

Bible, inject seeds which later produce corruption.

In Rome, we find an emphasis on the teachings of Simon

Peter, a legalistic, Judaistic, moralistic Christianity, that is

built around a universal proselyte that has a military and

political flavor to it.

And we find that, building around Alexandria, Egypt, a North

African, Latin type of Christianity, which is based on education

and Greek learning. Strangely enough, when we study manuscript

evidence, we find that the Greek manuscripts fall into three

classes--Syrian, Alexandrian, and Western. The Western text adds

to the true word of God; the Alexandrian subtracts from the true

word of God; and the true word of God is the Syrian, Byzantine

text of the King James 1611 A.V.

And you could get that from the Book of Acts, without

knowing Greek or Hebrew. For the great persecutor of the

Christians in the Book of Acts is Rome. And the corrupt

Libertines who dispute with Stephen are from Alexandria; and the

misguided scholar who didn't know his Bible is from Alexandria.

"Very instructive"--as Arthur W. Pink would say!

So we have Cyrinthus. He's halfway between a Gnostic and an

Ebionite. In fact, he was a kind of a link between the opposite

systems of Judaism and Gnosticism, and held a strange mixture of

Gnosticism, Judaism, and Ebionism. He denied the virgin birth,

and taught that the Logos or the "Christ" that descended upon

Jesus at baptism departed from Him before the crucifixion and

went back to the Father, and only the human Jesus was crucified.

Now, that's very interesting, because that's the reading

recommended by Bob Jones University for the Lockman Foundation.

You'll find in Luke chapter 23 the word "Lord" has been erased,

where the dying thief says, "Lord, remember me when thou comest

into thy kingdom." And the human term for Jesus has been

inserted: "Jesus, remember me." This Gnostic deprivation is from

Cyrinthus, about 90-120 a.d. That is, that corrupt blasphemy is

1900 years old! Don't you find that rather instructive?

The teaching that Jesus Christ ceased to be divine on the

cross and became a human is brought out in the erasing of the

word "Lord" from Luke 23 and insertion of the human word "Jesus,

remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." This is the

reading recommended by Bob Jones III. While he's talking about a

university standing for the Bible, can you imagine? How unreal

can you get? Or, as the hippies say, "Fantastic, man! Fantastic!"

Imagine ten preacher boys from Bob Jones standing up in a

fundamental church and talking about how they thank God they're

going to an institution that stands for the Bible! Why, the

bibles they recommend don't even stand for the deity of Jesus

Christ! Like I say, a knowledge of church history will save you

from a lot of corruption.

That's the teaching of Cyrinthus. He accepted Christ as a

teacher of enlightenment and speculative knowledge, but not a

redeemer from sin. He rejected all of the New Testament, except

part of Matthew.

Well, don't I remember in Matthew where Jesus said, "Thou

art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my church"? Isn't it

strange, all these early fellows, whether they're saved or lost,

all lean the same way? You remember Ignatius and Polycarp? They

put the emphasis on the Gospel of John--Antioch. In Alexandria,

we find the emphasis going on Mark and Matthew--Mark, as the

interpreter of Peter; and Matthew, "upon this Rock I will build

my church." Rather instructive, don't you think?

Saturninus

We find more Gnostics about this time. These are Greek

educators down near north Egypt and Alexandria, at the University

of Alexandria, that hang around Philo, whom we'll talk about

later, and Origen. One of these is Saturninus, a second-century

leader of Syrian Gnostics, born in Antioch. He studied under

Simon and Minander and was a contemporary of Basilides. He

established a school and taught at Antioch against the word of

God.

He made a distinction between a supreme God, or one unknown

Father, and "creations." He said, "When man was created by the

Demi-Urge [the lesser god], he could but crawl upon the earth as

a mere worm, until the Father sent down a Spark of His own divine

Light, and stood him upright." Hence, you will find many liberal

preachers talking about man having a "spark of divinity," after

evolving up from a worm.

Where does this teaching come from? Charlie Darwin? Oh, No!

No, this teaching is eighteen hundred years old. It's found in

church history.

Saturninus was a rigorous ascetic, attributing marriage and

procreation to Satan and rejecting meat. He denied the human

birth of Jesus, regarding His body as a mere appearance, and he

rejected the Old Testament.

His sect did not extend beyond Syria, and was short-lived.

You know why it was short-lived? Because he was right in the

middle of a hotbed of Biblical Christianity! And it couldn't

survive there, like it survived down in Egypt.

Now, during this time, of course, the Christians are getting

burned at the stake, and getting murdered and killed and shot,

and God knows what. And, as I said before, shot with arrows--I

had it right. And during this time, with all of them getting

murdered and killed and shot and burned, you should understand

that New Testament Christianity is found in the witnessing body

of believers who believe the word of God. And they're not wasting

their time arguing and fussing and fighting back and forth--like

the rest of this bunch is doing--with literary works.

But on it goes!

Marcion

There's Marcion, called Marcion the Heretic, 160. He is

founder of an early heretical sect. He was the son of a bishop,

born in Sinope on the south coast of the Black Sea. He went to

Rome and joined the congregation there, and he made generous

contributions to the church.

He thought the New Testament was unduly colored and

contaminated by the Jewish faith. He completely rejected the Old

Testament. Therefore, he formed a canon which consisted of eleven

books--an epurgated Gospel of Luke--not John--and ten of the

Pauline epistles. In his chief writings, called The Antithesis,

he propounded the ideas of the eternity of matter (Charlie

Darwin), the doscetic view of Christ, and an extremely ascetic

way of life.

Justin Martyr regarded him as the most insiduous and

dangerous heretic of the day. Polycarp called Marcion "the

firstborn of Satan." Philip Schaff said about Marcion the

Heretic, "He represents an extreme anti-Jewish and false Pauline

tendency, fanatical zeal for a pure, primitive Christianity, and

turned the gospel into an abrupt, unnatural, phantom-like

appearance."

Marcion the Heretic agrees with Origen in the passages in

the New and ASV that attack the deity of Jesus Christ. He died in

160. Eighteen hundred years ago, he and Origen agreed that the

readings of the New ASV should be accepted against the King

James. In the Greek manuscripts, you can prove it by checking the

critical apparatus in Nestle's Greek New Testament.

Christian Education in Alexandria

Now, leaving these Gnostics for a minute, these "higher

learners with the superior knowledge"--which Paul called

"foolishness; the Greeks seek for wisdom; but we preach Christ

crucified; unto the Greeks, foolishness"--leaving these educators

of Alexandria and North Africa (we'll come back to them in a

minute), let's take a general overall view of Christianity.

Dargan, the historian, notes that for 100 years after the

deaths of Peter and Paul the trace of preaching are extremely

scanty and do not exhibit any great degree of power. Dargan again

says that the spread of Christianity, both geographically and

numerically, had been largely the work of preaching. What

happened, then, to practical Christianity in this period? We find

these signs of belief in baptismal regeneration, the Epistle of

Barnabas, which we'll talk about later--Tertullian hints at them-

-Irenaeus is orthodox and Scriptural on eternal punishment, but

in his writings, as in Tertullian's writings, the seeds of an

episcopal hierarchy are already being sown, about which the Book

of Acts knows nothing.

Avoiding the doctrinal analysis of Irenaeus' Christology,

how did Irenaeus apply his theology? One writer says in his

preaching of the gospel, the conception of evangelical saving

faith is unfortunately a little obscured. If there's any

connection between Peter, James, and John, and Paul to some of

these Church Fathers, in their spirit of gospel crusading, nobody

has ever found it! Irenaeus representated a difficulty

encountered in finding what happened to the Apostolic witness of

the Book of Acts in the first and second century.

Polycarp and Ignatius were both martyred, of course. Both of

them, by the way, were premillennialists, according to Shirley

Case Jackson's work, The Millennial Hope, published in 1918. And

both of them approximate New Testament Christianity in their

practical work. Papius and Justin Martyr show some face of a

genuine Apostolic witness. He was a premillennialist also; Papius

was martyred about 155 a.d. But it was ol' Papius who started the

theory about Peter being the source of Mark's work for his

Gospel.

And by the way, it was dear old Papius who invented all that

hot air about an original Matthew's Gospel being in Aramaic. Did

you ever hear that one before? That's very interesting.

And we learned of Origen and these other Church Fathers. But

the Alexandrian church school and its associates formed a

peculiar juncture in the history of the church. So we're going to

have to take time out to talk about those things. The work of

Christian education in Alexandria in North Africa.

We've talked about the apologists writing in defense, and

their danger in using heathen terminology. And, at this point, we

should note that nearly all the Church Fathers were

millennialists of some kind--most of them premillennial. This

word is called "chiliastic" in the scholarly writings. Wherever

you find somebody hollering about a "chiliast" or "chiliastic,"

it's somebody who's complaining about the Second Coming of Jesus

Christ.

The main body of Christians are witnessing and winning

people to Christ and getting tortured and burned at the stake for

their faith, or getting thrown to the lions at this time. The

other fellows are arguing it out. As I said before, the

Christians at this time who are doing the job for God don't leave

any real writings.

The Pauline Obsession

This brings us to a very interesting thing we need to talk

about. After all, what was Paul? I mean, when we talk about Paul

as a Christian, what are we talking about? A writer or an

evangelist?

You see, the writers always confuse the writers with the

writers. And when they think of Paul they think of a doctrinal

theologian defending abstract precepts. Strangely enough, when we

read the Book of Acts and read about the life of Paul, we don't

get the picture of a writer at all. I mean, why is it that

theologians are constantly dragging Paul into the categories they

fashion when discussing theology? Well, they probably do it

because Paul was a brilliant man and a theologian in his own

right. But, more than that, Paul was a man, in the dynamic sense

of the word. To read the New Testament, one would think that Paul

had very little in common with the average theologian. Paul is

found preaching, then being stoned (Acts 14:19). He is found

reasoning of righteousness, temperance and judgment toward a

governor (Acts 24:25). He is stoned, jailed, whipped,

shipwrecked, persecuted, and treated for all the world like a

renegade anarchist (Acts 16:24-24:2). And if Paul were appear

preaching on the streets of our larger metropolises today, would

the Christian scholars be likely to include him among their

renowned theologians?

I call this peculiar obsession of these scholars to classify

Paul as a theologian as a writer, and then take church history

apart by the writers instead of by the soul-winners, I call it

"the Pauline Obsession." The tendency is to build a church

history on the collections of theologies and confessions and

writings, supposing Paul was primarily an original "thinker."

That is, a theologian who developed an original doctrine about

Christ.

This obsession is to make an academic theologian out of

Paul, and to compare his theology with subsequent. And that

business has obscured for nearly 1900 years the course the gospel

took following the Book of the Acts. And this point cannot be

overemphasized, if a correct analysis is to be made of practical

theology, the preaching and soul-winning part of church history.

The Book of the Acts, for example, shows an intensely

practical people, going about to fulfill and intensely practical

commission and obtaining intensely practical results. If it is

possible to trace any kind of apostolic succession from Acts 28

to where you are, we must look for witnesses who are Scriptural--

not dogmaticians who are orthodox.

Now, "The Pauline Obsession" can be illustrated in a number

of ways. The historians, when they write church history, they

team him up with a man who is unlike him. For example, Philip

Schaff teams him up with Luther, Calvin, and Thomas Acquinas. Or

Gustav Allen lines him up with John, Luther, and Augustine. Or

Lorrain Bettner lines him up with Moses, Hodge, and Warfield.

These classifications, however innocently constructed, reveal the

deep-seated obsession either to be like Paul, or to make him into

something he's not. Paul was no more like Hodge or Warfield than

Tiny Tim was like General William Booth. And you couldn't put

Paul and Augustine together any more than you could put Larry

Csonka in with David Cassidy!

Luther is classified as a theologian along with Paul by most

historians. Although a professor at Stanford University stated

that Luther was not a theologian and had not even made a thorough

of the theology of his times. It is accepted by most scholars

that Paul did not his revelation systematically in a theological

sense. Gowison omits Paul while listing Origen, Eusebius and

Calvin together.

Some of the classifications are sound. For example,

Augustine and John Calvin and Thomas Acquinas are three master

theological minds. That's true. In The Protestant Dilemma, a

church history written by Henry, he ties Barth up with Berkhof,

Engelder, Warfield, Murray and Schaeffer--which is true.

But theologicans constantly drag Paul into the categories

they fashion when they discuss theology. They do it all the time.

And the Pauline Obsession is illustrated by the manner in which

they treat the Pauline Epistles.

The last part of the Pauline Obsession, what I call it, is

the overlooking of the results of Paul's applied theology. "The

gospel," says Martin Luther, "is preaching and crying of the

grace of God. It stands not in books and letters but in an oral

preaching, a living word, a voice that resounds there into the

entire world and is publicly cried abroad."

One of the greatest crimes in the scholastic field is the

constant attempt to pull the doers into goosesteps with the

thinkers, at the same time persecuting the contemporary doers,

loudly crying, "They are not thinkers!" A thinker can be a doer,

but many of them in history have not been, as can be seen from an

honest study of church history. The use of strong adjectives in

drawing the line between the thinkers who were doers and the

thinkers who just wrote and wanted to be like the doers, must be

frequently resorted to in the study of church to history to show

you the difference. The names involved in church history, like

we've been studying here, have been handled by many writers in

such a way so as to cast a New Testament halo over some men who

are no more Paul's stature than Judas Iscariot's. And you need to

know that in studying church history.

I mean, the great, vast amount of these Christians here in

the first two centuries are simply winning people to Christ and

dying for their faith. They are not writing little epistles and

misusing the word of God and perverting the word of God and

borrowing heathen terminology and trying to fight intellectual

arguments with the heathen on an intellectual level. They are out

doing the work for God. And you should know that.

The University of Alexandria

All right, these Church Fathers who are what we call Ante-

Nicene Church Fathers also come up into Origen (184-254).

And here, for a minute, we need to go back and review the

events that take place behind the school that Origen studied at,

and later became principal of or head of. The study of this

school plays a very important part in church history. As a matter

of fact, it can hardly be overemphasized.

Because, as you know, in modern-day Christianity, the final

authority is not the word of God. It's Christian education. And I

say that without blanching or blushing in apologies to no one. I

don't have to retract it, because it's true. And if I were sued

in court, I could prove it in about fifteen or twenty minutes,

and the educators know it. So they're not going to take me to

court over it. They're going to mind their own business and be

good little boys and girls like they ought to be.

The final authority at Bob Jones University, for example, or

Pensacola Christian College, is not the Bible. They may advertise

about the authority of the Bible. But they don't believe that for

a minute. When you read a book by Custer on inspiration, where he

says, "Christians should use the inspired word," he's just lying.

He doesn't believe you have the inspired word. If you don't

believe it, ask him! Don't get mad at me. Don't be a bigot all

your life. Get around and find out what's going on.

When John R. Rice says, "How wicked of the Christian not to

read the inspired word of God," he's just kidding you. He doesn't

mean that. He doesn't believe the King James Bible is inspired;

he'd be very careful to tell you so every time you put him on the

mat for it. He doesn't believe that. He doesn't believe any

Christian can read the inspired word of God. He doesn't believe

that, and you he knows he doesn't believe it. And he knows he

doesn't believe it, and he lies to you about it.

And we're not saying that he's not a good man and hasn't won

souls. Imitate his example in soul-winning. Imitate his example

in being true to the fundamentals. Imitate his example in getting

places to preach. But when he corrects that Bible, just ignore

his example. Don't correct.

All right, now, getting back to this school at Alexandria.

This school probably had more influence on the things that took

place in Christianity up to the Council of Nicea than any other

single factor. As Eve wanted an education (Genesis 3), and the

desire to know is incurable in human nature--which is evidenced

by Genesis 3--so educated people, and especially college-educated

people, and seminary-educated people, always have a sort of an

edge, so to speak, on the common man, because they're looked up

to by the common man as sort of "demigods" or "demi-urges," or

whatever you want to call it.

And so the first Christian university, the world's most

unusual university, at Alexandria, Egypt, sported quite a record

and quite a history of which you should know something.

Philo of Alexandria

Now the first thing you should know about Origen's

background is the name of a Jewish philosopher (Colossians 2:8),

named Philo of Alexandria. He is born about 20 b.c., lives

through the time of Christ, and dies about 50 a.d., before the

completion of the New Testament.

Philo of Alexandria, Egypt, North Africa, where the Sphinx

is, and the pyramids--a type of the world. God was very careful

to call His Son out of Egypt and call Israel out of Egypt. And

some day He's going to call the body of Christ out of Egypt.

He was born in Alexandria and received a thorough education

in the "Septuagint Old Testament." The writer of this particular

statement, as all church historians, is taking for granted that

there was a Greek completed Old Testament in Greek around at the

time of Christ. This is sheer fantasy! I have right in front of

my in my office the Greek Septuagint Concordance--right on the

table in front of me. The Greek Septuagint Concordance has an

exhaustive concordance listing every Greek word found in the Old

Testament Greek Septuagint, and there isn't one word or one

manuscript that it quotes that was written before 200 a.d.--150

years after the death of Philo.

He was profoundly influenced by Greek thought, especially by

Plato and Pythagoras, and the doctrine of Stoicism. When an old

man, he headed an embassy of five Jews, who went to Rome to plead

with Emperor Caligula in behalf of the Jews of Alexandria. As a

philosopher (Colossians 2:8), he sought to reconcile Greek

philosophy (Colossians 2:8) and the Old Testament by the

allegorical means of interpretation and by Hellenistic philosophy

(Colossians 2:8), holding that Moses was the source of much Greek

philosophy (Colossians 2:8).

You were warned about philosophy in that Bible in Colossians

2:8, and you were warned in no uncertain terms. You couldn't

possibly miss it! And when you run to a philosopher from

Alexandria, Egypt, you better get on your toes and get ready to

fire, because you're headed for trouble!

The writings of Philo portray an attempt to blend Hebrew

monotheism (one God) with pagan pantheism (more than one god).

Yet he tried to maintain faith in a personal living God. Philo's

doctrine of God and God's relation to the world had a marked

influence upon the Gnostic teachings of the first three centuries

of Christianity.

Philo, then, is a genuine source for the Gnostic teaching

that Christ was not a man. The Gnostics elaborated on Philo's

doctrine, and between a perfect exalted God and a material world

there was an extended series of active spiritual beings or "demi-

urges" of "lesser gods." This leads to the New A.S.V. reading

recommended by Bob Jones III in John 1:18 (New A.S.V.), which

says a begotten God reveals another God. Read it! Don't get mad

at me! If you like the Bob Jones banquet with the pretty-faced

boys and girls and the beautiful brass trio, go on and make a

liar out of God and see where it gets you. If you don't know

church history, you're condemned to make a liar out of God and

make a fool out of yourself.

Philo begins the teaching of more than one god, bigger and

lesser, while maintaining faith in an absolute God. And we read

by any history Philo's method of allegorical interpretation had

much influence on the allegorical method of interpretation

followed by the Alexandrian Fathers, especially Clement of

Alexandria and Origen.

Now the untold damage done by the Christian education and

the faculty at the University of Alexandria should only be

estimated in terms of millions of souls. One might say the damage

done to the authority of the Bible and belief in the Bible was

greater when it was accomplished in Alexandria, Egypt, by

Christian educators, than any other five combined factors

including the Roman Catholic Church, Communism, atheism,

paganism, liberalism, modernism, and any other sect.

The Allegorical Method of Interpretation

Clement of Alexandria shows up to take over this school. And

Clement of Alexandria is a first-rate heretic by anybody's

standards. Clement of Alexandria (150-215 a.d.), a Father of the

Eastern Church, an Ante-Nicene Father, born of well-to-do pagan

parents in Athens. After conversion to Christianity in mature

years, he came in touch with Pantanus of Egypt, who strongly

influenced his life with Stoic philosophy and the allegorical

interpretation of Scripture.

You say, "What is this 'allegorical interpretation of

Scripture' I keep hearing about?" Well, allegorical

interpretation simply means that God's lying. Now, you know,

that's reducing it to the smallest common denominator. But, to

explain that, "allegory" means that Adam and Eve weren't in the

garden. "Adam" was the male principle, and "Eve" was the female

principle. The "garden" wasn't there; it was "democracy." The

cherub wasn't a cherub; he was "capitalism." Or, the tree of life

wasn't the tree of life; it was the Federal Reserve Bank. You

understand? Pharaoh wasn't really a king in Egypt; "Pharaoh" was

an unclean spirit. Moses wasn't born; Moses was the rhetorical

method of teaching on the Storah Porch at Athens. You understand?

"Allegory" simply means the Old Testament never happened,

it's just a beautiful picture and fantasy. It represents what I

think it means, and if you take what I think it means, you've got

the right answer. And if you take what he thinks it means, you

don't.

The allegorical method of interpretation, of course,

produces the amillennialist--the man who denies the Millennial

Reign of Christ. Dr. A.T. Robertson, for example. Hodges,

Warfield, Machen, for example.

The allegorical method of interpretation produces the

postmillennialist, the man who believes things are getting better

and better. Like Augustine, for example. And Beacher and the

Black Muslims and the NAACP, for example.

This allegorical method is the teaching that the Bible

doesn't mean what it says, and doesn't say what it means. If it

doesn't, then of course you have to have a key to interpretation.

You have to have somebody who tells you what it does mean--and

guess who it is? Us Christian scholars! Did you ever hear that

one before?

Joseph says, "Interpretations belong to God." Daniel says,

"There is a God in heaven who can interpret the dream." Paul

says, "The Spirit searches all things; yea, the deep things of

God. God has revealed them unto us by his Spirit." The Bible

says, "No prophecy of the Scripture--Old Testament--is of any

private interpretation. But holy men of God spake as they were

moved by the Holy Ghost." Which means, briefly, that if there's

one thing that is essential for the understanding of the Bible

and prophecy, it's not a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. That

might be the fifth item on the list.

But the experts in Hebrew, Kyle, Delitsch, and Gesenius,

rejected three-quarters of the Bible. And the experts in Greek--

Davis, Robertson, Nestle, Aland, and Metzger--none of them were

premillennialists! And four of them didn't even profess to be

saved! That is, if there's one thing that's not essential to

understanding the Bible, it's Greek and Hebrew. That's for sure!

I'm not sure that they won't do a little bit of good in

their proper place. We teach the students down here three years

of Greek and a year of Hebrew, so he can handle the critical

apparatus in Greek and Hebrew Bibles and understand some of the

monkeyshines and the excursions into cloudland performed by the

Bible-rejecting people who lay so much emphasis upon it.

But, if you want to get correct interpretation, it doesn't

lie in the realm of Greek and Hebrew scholarship. The greatest

Hebrew and Greek scholars who ever lived missed three-quarters of

the Bible just as blind as a bat. They couldn't find a bowling

ball in a bathtub!

Pantaenus

Then we have this fellow Pantaenus. He died about 189. He

was the first known head of the school at Alexandria. Born in

Athens, a Stoic philosopher, like Philo. A Stoic philosopher,

like Tertullian. A Stoic philosopher, a teacher of Clement of

Alexandria.

Clement of Alexandria

All right, then Clement comes up with two men in his

background--Philo and Pantaenus. And Clement of Alexandria, as he

comes up, takes over the school in 189 after the death of

Pantaenus.

You say, "Do these men profess the new birth?" There is no

record that Clement or Pantaenus or Origen ever professed the new

birth--apart from sprinkling of water. They all thought water

baptism was regeneration; you'll find this throughout the

writings of Origen and Clement.

And Origen later became Clement's successor.

Then we have a very interesting thing here. We have a school

that professed to be a Christian school, starting up in

Alexandria, Egypt, started by a Jewish philosopher--which

automatically becomes "Christian" without anything taking place!

The successors being, first, Philo, then Pantaenus, then Clement,

then Origen--about whom we'll have a great deal to say in the

next volume.

Clement held a position as the head of the school in

Alexandria, until the time of Origen. And Origen and Alexander of

Jerusalem were two of Clement's most noted pupils. Origen later

became Clement's successor.

Early in Christian life, Clement became an elder in the

church at Alexandria. We have little of anything else about

Clement after this date. A school of wide reading, versed in all

branches of Greek philosophy, in the Old and New Testament, in

the Apocryphal writings, in Christian literature, took place

there. A scholar of wide reading taught that stuff at Alexandria.

All of the philosophers and writers say he was a "great

thinker" and "a great Christian philospher" (Colossians 2:8), and

he called his philosophy (Colossians 2:8) "Christian Gnosticism."

He said that Christianity had all the good of other philosophies

(Colossians 2:8), and much truth they didn't have. A copious

writer, Clement of Alexandria's writings are repetitious and lack

in clarity. The Catholic Church never saw fit to class him among

the saints, yet he was recognized as a "great scholar."

We give credit to Clement of Alexandria for writing the

oldest Christian hymn that has come to us, a poem entitled

"Shepherd of Tender Youth."

The background of the school of Alexandria is Greek

philosophy--warned about in Isaiah, chapter 26, chapter 29,

warned about in 1 Corinthians 1, 1 Corinthians 2, warned about in

Luke chapter 10, warned about in 1 Timothy 6, warned about in

Colossians chapter 2, and warned about from kivver to kivver,

through 31 chapters, in the Book of Proverbs.

This school that is taken over to Origen, the Church Father,

184-254, became the foundation bed for every apostate trend among

the writers and scholars in the church for the next eighteen

centuries. That's very important to notice. The influence of

Alexandria, Egypt. The reason why it is of special interest to

the New Testament student of 1991 and 1992 is because every

translation called "reliable" by Bob Jones III, John R. Rice,

Hyles-Anderson College, Falwell's University, and the Baptist

University of the South--every translation called "reliable" by

these schools other than the King James is an Alexandria bible

from Alexandria, Egypt, from Alexandrian manuscripts that are

called Alexandrian by every Greek scholar in the universe. They

are phony, godless, depraved, corrupt, blasphemous manuscripts

that attrack the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the bodily

resurrection, the ascension, the restoration of Israel--and, in

one place or another, attack every fundamental of the faith

believed by fundamentalists. The fact that they do not attack all

fundamentals in every passes them off as "reliable translations"

by the gullible, naive, superstitious, pagan faculty members of

Christian schools. But one must never forget that the faculty

members of the University of Alexandria were all pagans who

professed conversion by baptismal regeneration.

Hence, by the time of 325, we find the body of Christ has

become apostate in its attitude toward authority, apostate in its

attitude toward the scope and coverage of the Bible, where it

speaks of things the Christian disagrees with, and has set up a

body of scholars and theologians who will sit in judgment on the

word of God, and judge it by tradition, legend, Greek education,

and Greek philosophy. We will study in our next volume more about

the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and of course, Origen in particular, who

becomes the kingpin, the foundation stone, the root and grounding

of every error taught by every faculty member of every Christian

school in the United States today.

If you know church history, you know what to look out for.

It is therefore expedient for the Christian to know church

history, and indispensable for the educated Christian to know the

progress of the church from Acts 28 to its present state.

---

Index of Preacher's Help and Notes

These documents are free from BelieversCafe.com, the complete christian resource site with more than 5000 webpages.