What was the Parting from the Way?
Partially to explain church history, many Protestant scholars teach that there was a parting of the ways.
What really was the parting of the ways?
It was the separating between original Christianity and what became the Greco-Roman confederation, mainly in the second and later centuries.
While Protestant scholars do not normally word it that way, many like to claim that there was a separation between what they tend to call Jewish and Gentile Christianity.
The Protestant scholar Dr. James D.G. Dunn wrote:
In the first edition of Partings I made bold to draw the conclusion that a final ‘parting’ can be discerned in the second century-with the second Jewish revolt against Rome, and certainly by the end of the second century. Further study soon made it clearer to me that these were but further partings, (Dunn JDG. The Parting of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity, 2nd ed. Hymns Ancient & Modern Ltd, 2006, pp. XVIII-XIX)
There is a strong consensus that Judaism and Christianity effectively became separate religious systems in the early second century. (Dunn, p. 341)
Well, although there was what would be called the Christian religion in the FIRST century, there was a definite parting of the ways between those who held to the original faith and a compromised one after the second Jewish revolt. That revolt is known as the Bar Kochba Revolt. and a definite parting took place in Jerusalem c. 134-135 A.D.
Yet in his book, Dr. Dunn does not give specifics of, for example, what happened in Jerusalem at that time between the two main professing Christian groups. Instead, we see statements such as:
Nor can we speak of a single breach, or, to resume our principal metaphor, of a single parting of the ways. … When the parting of the ways between mainstream Christianity and Jewish Christianity took place is an even more obscure issue …
Christianity remained Jewish Christianity. As we move into the second century not only certain Christian sects can be described as ‘Jewish-Christian’, but Christianity as a whole can still properly be described as ‘Jewish Christianity’ in a justifiable sense. (Dunn, pp. 301, 305-306, 307)
Notice that we also see, like some other theological scholars, Dr. Dunn realizes that the early church was more ‘Jewish’ than what happened in and after the second century to many who professed Christianity.
How did a parting begin?
In the first century, according to the New Testament, some people introduced heresies (2 Timothy 2:16-16; Galatians 1:6-7; Jude 4; Revelation 2:2).
The Apostles Paul and John wrote of those who separated from them:
15 This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. (2 Timothy 1:15)
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. (1 John 2:19)
The basic cause of this parting of the ways was refusal to accept hierarchical church governance by those who departed. That still is an issue to this day (see also The Bible, Peter, Paul, John, Polycarp, Herbert W. Armstrong, Roderick C. Meredith, and Bob Thiel on Church Government).
And there were other issues as well, as various people did not want to stick to the original biblical doctrines.
Yet, the Apostle John wrote:
24 Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that He has promised us — eternal life. 26 These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. (1 John 2:24-26)
19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one. (1 John 5:19)
John warned not to be deceived by those who say you do not have accept original Christianity, that “you heard from the beginning.” But many have departed from that and have been under the sway of the wicked one.
The late Roman Catholic French Cardinal Jean-Guenole-Marie Danielou wrote that church history has generally been mistaught by downplaying the fact that the Romans considered Christianity a Jewish sect, and not a new religion. Cardinal Danielou specifically wrote that not properly teaching the truth about the ‘Jewishness’ of early Christianity has led to a “false picture of Christian history” (Daniélou J, Cardinal. The Theology of Jewish Christianity. Translated by John A. Baker. The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1964, p. 2).
Now, in the second century, related to those that became less ‘Jewish,’ Polycarp of Smyrna said that they held to “the vanity of many” (Polycarp. Letter to the Philippians, Chapter VII). Whereas Serapion of Antioch later referred to as them as part of a “lying confederacy” that he saw taking shape (Serapion. From the epistle to Caricus and Ponticus. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. Roberts & Donaldson).
Dr. Dunn was of the view that there was a ‘Jewish Christianity’ split from the other version in the second century (Dunn, p. 341). He also noted that there were other separations:
It is no surprise that the disappearance of ‘Jewish Christianity’ more or less coincides with a final ‘parting’ between Christianity and Judaism in the latter half of the fourth century, (Dunn, p. XXI)
Nearly two-and-a-half centuries after the parting of the ways, the continuing attraction of Judaism to many Christians in Asia Minor in particular is well indicated by the council of Laodicea (c. 363 CE), which prohibited Christians from practising their religion with Jews, in particular, ‘celebrating festivals with them’, ‘keeping the sabbath’, ‘eating unleavened bread’ during the Passover; Christians should work on the sabbath and read the Gospels as well as the Jewish scriptures on Saturday (Canons 16, 29, 37, 38). (Dunn, pp. 345-346)
Dr. Dunn also wrote:
Whether Jewish Christianity could or should have been retained within the spectrum of catholic Christianity is an important question which it may now be impossible to answer. (Dunn, p. 313)
Well, that questions is not impossible to answer–IF ONE BELIEVES THE BIBLE! The original faith, which Dr. Dunn calls Jewish Christianity, should have been retained by those who claim to be Christian!
Nor did original Christianity disappear.
The fact there would be problems from early times was known by the Apostle Paul who warned:
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8)
20 … Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge — 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. (1 Timothy 6:20-21)
7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; (2 Thessalonians 2:7)
Paul was warning about philosophies of the world’s educated, what is claimed to be knowledge, and traditions of men that opposed the truth of the Bible.
One who looks to have been involved in such lawless mysteries was Simon Magus (Acts 8:23), who was mentioned in Acts 8:5-25. Later reports confirm that he parted from the way as he pushed his anti-scriptural philosophies.
In the late first century, Hegisippus mentions that one influenced by Simon Magus, named Thebuthis, began to corrupt the Church of God in Jerusalem and was among those “who divided the unity of the Church by corrupt doctrines uttered against God and against his Christ” (Eusebius. Church History, Book IV, Chapter 22, verses 1, 4-5).
In early 2nd century Jerusalem, an apostate known as Marcus of Jerusalem gained influence and power. The 4th century Greco-Roman Bishop and historian, Eusebius, wrote the following related to Jerusalem and him:
2. … until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, there were fifteen bishops in succession there, all of whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate. (Eusebius. The History of the Church, Book IV, Chapter V. Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Digireads, 2005, p. 71)
3. The war raged most fiercely in the eighteenth year of Adrian …
4. And thus, when the city had been emptied of the Jewish nation and had suffered the total destruction of its ancient inhabitants, it was colonized by a different race, and the Roman city which subsequently arose changed its name and was called Ælia, in honor of the emperor Ælius Adrian. And as the church there was now composed of Gentiles, the first one to assume the government of it after the bishops of the circumcision was Marcus. (Chapter VI, pp. 71,72).
So, we see that someone who was not of the Jewish nation ‘assumed governance’ in the newly renamed city of Ælia Capitolina– it stopped being officially called Jerusalem right after Hadrian’s troops conquered it–and had others who followed after him.
Notice also:
During the nineteenth year of Hadrian’s reign (a.d. 117-138) the first uncircumcised Greek Gentile Bishop of Ælia Capitolina was Marcus, c. a.d. 135. (Dowling TE. The orthodox Greek patriarchate of Jerusalem, 3rd ed. Society for promoting Christian knowledge, 1913, p. 48)
Notice what the Roman Catholic monk and historian Jean Briand reported what happened after in 135 A.D.:
135. The direction of the Church in Jerusalem was then entrusted to bishops of pagan origin. (Briand J. The Judeo-Christian Church of Nazareth Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem, 1982, p. 13)
Those “bishops of pagan origin,” beginning with Marcus, were apostates who compromised with pagans.
How did this happen?
Some years after Thebuthis began to corrupt things and the Jews rebelled against Emperor Hadrian, let’s look at a version of what occurred according to the noted historian E. Gibbon:
The first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were all circumcised Jews; and the congregation over which they presided united the law of Moses with the doctrine of Christ. It was natural that the primitive tradition of a church which was founded only forty days after the death of Christ, and was governed almost as many years under the immediate inspection of his apostle, should be received as the standard of orthodoxy. The distant churches very frequently appealed to the authority of their venerable Parent, and relieved her distresses by a liberal contribution of alms…
The Nazarenes retired from the ruins of Jerusalem to the little town of Pella beyond the Jordan, where that ancient church languished above sixty years in solitude and obscurity. They still enjoyed the comfort of making frequent and devout visits to the Holy City, and the hope of being one day restored to those seats which both nature and religion taught them to love as well as to revere. But at length, under the reign of Hadrian, the desperate fanaticism of the Jews filled up the measure of their calamities; and the Romans, exasperated by their repeated rebellions, exercised the rights of victory with unusual rigour. The emperor founded, under the name of Alia Capitolina, a new city on Mount Sion, to which he gave the privileges of a colony; and denouncing the severest penalties against any of the Jewish people who should dare to approach its precincts, he fixed a vigilant garrison of a Roman cohort to enforce the execution of his orders. The Nazarenes had only one way left to escape the common proscription, and the force of truth was on this occasion assisted by the influence of temporal advantages.
They elected Marcus for their bishop, a prelate of the race of the Gentiles, and most probably a native either of Italy or of some of the Latin provinces. At his persuasion the most considerable part of the congregation renounced the Mosaic law, in the practice of which they had persevered above a century. By this sacrifice of their habits and prejudices they purchased a free admission into the colony of Hadrian ...
When the name and honours of the church of Jerusalem had been restored to Mount Sion, the crimes of heresy and schism were imputed to the obscure remnant of the Nazarenes which refused to accompany their Latin bishop. They still preserved their former habitation of Pella, spread themselves into the villages adjacent to Damascus, and formed an inconsiderable church in the city of Bercea, or, as it is now called, of Aleppo, in Syria. (Gibbon E. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume I, Chapter XV, Section I. ca. 1776-1788).
Notice that it is understood that the early Jewish bishops of Jerusalem had the STANDARD OF ORTHODOXY. That should not have been changed by any who accept Jude’s admonition to contend earnestly for the original faith (Jude 3); see also the free ebook: Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?
We see that name calling against the faithful was done by the real apostates–that still happens today.
Because of the Jewish revolt, Emperor Hadrian outlawed many practices considered to be Jewish. The 20th century historian Salo W. Barron wrote:
Hadrian . . . According to rabbinic sources, he prohibited public gatherings for instruction in Jewish law, forbade the proper observance of the Sabbath and holidays and outlawed many important rituals (Barron SW. Social and Religious History of the Jews, Volume 2: Christian Era: the First Five Centuries. Columbia University Press, 1952, p. 107).
The Christians in Judea were forced to make a decision. They either could continue to keep the Sabbath and the rest of God’s law and flee, or they could compromise and support a religious leader (Marcus) who would not keep the Sabbath, etc.
Sadly, many who claimed Christ made the wrong choice and followed the direction of Marcus–the broad way which allowed them to stay in Jerusalem.
Yet, remember that Jesus taught:
23 When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Matthew 10:23)
The faithful understood that and chose to flee instead of accepting the persecution to compromise to remain in Jerusalem. Around the same time, news of Hadrian’s anti-Jewish sentiment became known and also affected many in Rome and elsewhere. Due to cowardice, some who professed Christianity began to compromise on things such as the Sabbath and the date of Passover.
There is an old Arabic Islamic manuscript that reports about those considered to be Judeao-Christians that seems to provide some additional details of what happened c. 134-135 A.D. It was published in English in 1966 by Shlomo Pines as The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New Source. It was originally written by an Arabic Muslim around the tenth century named Abd al-Jabbar and called Tathbit Dala’il Nubuwwat Sayyidina Mahammad.
Here is the translation of one section of it that shows a separation between those called Christians and those who strove to maintain the original faith:
(71a) ‘After him’, his disciples (axhab) were with the Jews and the Children of Israel in the latter’s synagogues and observed the prayers and the feasts of (the Jews) in the same place as the latter. (However) there was a disagreement between them and the Jews with regard to Christ.
The Romans (al-Rum) reigned over them. The Christians (used to) complain to the Romans about the Jews, showed them their own weakness and appealed to their pity. And the Romans did pity them. This (used) to happen frequently. And the Romans said to the Christians: “Between us and the Jews there is a pact which (obliges us) not to change their religious laws (adyan). But if you would abandon their laws and separate yourselves from them, praying as we do (while facing) the East, eating (the things) we eat, and regarding as permissible that which we consider as such, we should help you and make you powerful, and the Jews would find no way (to harm you). On the contrary, you would be more powerful than they.”
The Christians answered: “We will do this.”
(And the Romans) said: “Go, fetch your companions, and bring your Book (kitab).” (The Christians) went to their companions, informed them of (what had taken place) between them and the Romans and said to them: “Bring the Gospel (al-injil), and stand up so that we should go to them.”
But these (companions) said to them: “You have done ill. We are not permitted (to let) the Romans pollute the Gospel. In giving a favourable answer to the Romans, you have accordingly departed from the religion. We are (therefore) no longer permitted to associate with you; on the contrary, we are obliged to declare that there is nothing in common between us and you;” and they prevented their (taking possession of) the Gospel or gaining access to it. In consequence a violent quarrel (broke out) between (the two groups). Those (mentioned in the first place) went back to the Romans and said to them: “Help us against these companions of ours before (helping us) against the Jews, and take away from them on our behalf our Book (kitab).” Thereupon (the companions of whom they had spoken) fled the country. And the Romans wrote concerning them to their governors in the districts of Mosul and in the Jazirat al-‘Arab. Accordingly, a search was made for them; some (qawm) were caught and burned, others (qawm) were killed.
(As for) those who had given a favorable answer to the Romans they came together and took counsel as to how to replace the Gospel, seeing it was lost to them. (Thus) the opinion that a Gospel should be composed (yunshi`u) was established among them … a certain number of Gospels were written. (Pines S. The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New Source. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Volume II, No.13; 1966. Jerusalem, pp. 14-15).
The above would seem to have taken place in the second century (which is consistent with Shlomo Pines’ beliefs) around 130 (the start) and 135 A.D. (the end). It is interesting for a number of reasons. It shows that there were two group that professed Christ then. One called “Christians” above, and the other (the faithful ones) called “companions.” Notice that the compromisers agreed to eat like the Romans, which meant that they would eat biblical unclean animals. The fact that the companions would no longer associate with the compromisers, and had to flee, showed that in whatever area the above occurred in, there were definitely two groups.
One group that departed from the truth to compromise with the Roman government so they would not have to move, with the other keeping to the original faith and fleeing like Jesus said to do (Matthew 10:23). The compromisers also pushed a different, false, gospel.
As far as the parting goes, Protestant scholars often push a false and unbiblical view on the parting of the ways as the following from a Protestant scholar realized:
The “Parting of the Ways” is typically depicted as an inexorable development … the inevitable separation of Christianity (in all its varieties) from its theological, social, and cultural ties to Judaism … the narratives told in modern research echo proto-orthodox/orthodox Christian historiography in asserting that “Jewish-Christian” forms of belief and worship should have never survived – let alone thrived – long beyond the apostolic age. Accordingly, scholars largely follow the lead of the heresiologists, by minimizing, marginalizing, and explaining away the evidence to the contrary. (Reed AY. ‘Jewish Christianity’ after the ‘Parting of the Ways’: Approaches to Historiography and Self-Definition in the Pseudo-Clementine Literature. In: The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003, 189-231).
Basically, many “parting of the ways” theologians twist the meaning of the Apostle Paul’s writings, consistent with what the Apostle Peter warned about in 2 Peter 3:15-16. They also tend to rely on mistranslations of the writings of Ignatius (see Another Look at the Didache, Ignatius, and the Sabbath), and often rely on arguments of men who were not truly Christian.
The fact is that “Jewish-Christian” forms of belief and worship did survive and thrive after the apostles. The so-called “inevitable separation” from scriptural practices considered ‘Jewish’ by many Protestant scholars and nearly all Protestants is not what the Bible calls for. Those who believe the true faith was to change are clinging to a lie (cf. Revelation 22:15)—and sadly, that lie is what Greco-Roman-Protestants tend to accept.
It was around this time in the 2nd century, that according to the late SDA scholar Samuel Bacchioicchi, that the keeping of Sunday started to be adopted in Rome as well as Jerusalem.
Furthermore, it is not just a “Parting of the Ways” that is a problem for the Greco-Roman Catholics and Protestants, it is a departing from what the Book of Acts often refers to as THE WAY per Acts 9:2,19:9,19:23,24:22–the Greek definite article for “the” proceeds the Greek word for “way” in all those verses. That is THE WAY which Protestants have not chosen. Outside of THE WAY, the other ways are false (Matthew 7:13; 1 John 2:19).
The Apostle Paul encountered such and departed from them:
8 And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, (Acts 19:8-9)
The Apostle Peter warned about such would would not follow the right way of truth:
1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. …
15 They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; (2 Peter 2:1-3,15)
The Apostle Paul added:
10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (1 Timothy 6:10)
The wages of unrighteousness/love of money is one of the reasons that some departed from the way of truth.
God’s prophet Samuel stated:
23 … I will teach you the good and the right way. (1 Samuel 12:23)
There is ONE RIGHT WAY:
38 They shall be My people, and I will be their God; 39 then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them and their children after them. 40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me. (Jeremiah 32:38-40)
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. (John 14:6)
In the second century, the Greek philosopher, later known as Justin Martyr, arose. He not only endorsed human philosophies, he taught that there were Christians in Asia Minor who had Jewish practices like the Holy Days and the Ten Commandments, but that he did not care to associate with them (Justin. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 47). Justin also seemed to accept the false Gospel of Peter (Justin. First Apology, Chapter 36, verse 6) which the true Christians never did.
Twice the Book of Proverbs warns:
12 There is a way that seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death. (Proverbs 14:12, 16:25)
It also warns:
15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,
But he who heeds counsel is wise. (Proverbs 12:15)2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes,
But the Lord weighs the hearts. (Proverbs 21:2)
Sadly, people choose something other than THE WAY normally do not consider themselves fools–many think that they are educated and have knowledge (cf. 1 Timothy 6:20) and hence they also do not believe that the negative aspects of various scriptures applies to them.
While many think they believe the Bible, the reality is that because they have accepted a deceitful and different way, a way that departed from the original faith (Colossians 2:8), they do not.
Consider numerous Roman Catholic, Aramaic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox translations of one verse in the Bible:
3 Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. (Jude 3, DRB)
3 My dear friends, at a time when I was eagerly looking forward to writing to you about the salvation that we all share, I felt that I must write to you encouraging you to fight hard for the faith which has been once and for all entrusted to God’s holy people. (Jude 3, NJB)
3 My beloved, I write to you with all diligence concerning our common salvation, and it is needful that I should write and exhort you also to contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered to the saints. (Jude 1-3, Lamsa Bible)
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write to you about our common life, it was necessary for me to write to you, as I am to persuade you to compete for the faith, which was once delivered to The Holy Ones. (Jude 3, Aramaic Bible in Plain English)
3 I write to you and encourage you to continue your fight for the Christian faith that was entrusted to God’s holy people once for all time. (Jude 3, God’s Word Translation)
3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 3 NKJV/OSB)
3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I felt it needful to write to you in order to encourage you to fight hard for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 3 EOB)
If those translations convey what God intended, then it should be clear that Christians are to hold to the original faith of the first century and not the changed faith of the second century that many have followed.
The Apostle Paul twice exhorted Christians to “continue in the faith” (Acts 14:22; Colossians 1:23), not change it. He also wrote to “continue in faith” (1 Timothy 2:15), “the doctrine. Continue” (1 Timothy 4:16), and “continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them” (2 Timothy 3:14). Paul also praised Timothy because he “carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life” (2 Timothy 3:10).
Faithful Christians were not to depart from the faith. They were to be separate from pagans:
15 Can Christ agree with the devil? Can a believer share life with an unbeliever?
16 Can God’s temple contain false gods? Clearly, we are the temple of the living God. As God said, “I will live and walk among them. I will be their God, and they will be my people.”
17 The Lord says, “Get away from unbelievers. Separate yourselves from them. Have nothing to do with anything unclean. Then I will welcome you.” (2 Corinthians 6:15-17, GWT)
That is basically what the faithful did in the second century when the pagan-influenced group changed, and even embraced unclean animal consumption. Consider that Paul also warned about ones who should know better:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, … 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness … (Romans 1:18-19,24)
Under Marcus of Jerusalem, many there began to consume unclean animals as the Romans urged. It should also be noted that Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome (also spelled Eleutheris) was, according to Roman Catholic sources, the one who proclaimed Roman Catholics could eat biblically-unclean animals, about a century and a half after Jesus was resurrected.
But after the parting in the second century, the pagan-influenced group departed even further from original Christianity after the instigations of Roman Emperor Constantine.
Do we have records of Christian leaders dealing with the departed?
Yes.
Let’s first consider the background of Polycarp.
Irenaeus, considered to be a saint by Church of Rome and Eastern Orthodox, claimed to have met Polycarp and recorded this about Polycarp (c. 180 A.D.):
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna … always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time…There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth (Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book III, Chapter 3, Verse 4).
Notice that Irenaeus is claiming that Polycarp was appointed bishop (pastor/overseer) of the Church in Smyrna by the apostles in Asia (which would most likely have been John and Philip and perhaps some others) and that his Letter to the Philippians taught the true faith. Notice also that Irenaeus is claiming that there was a list of men who have succeeded Polycarp until the late 2nd century and that they held to the teaching of the apostles. There is simply no reliable record of such transfer occurring in Rome or the other so-called “sees” of the Eastern Orthodox. Thus the only documented (and essentially universally accepted) apostle to “bishop” transfer of leadership for the 1st and 2nd centuries that continued until at least the end of the 2nd century was through Polycarp of Smyrna (more on “apostolic succession” can be found in the article simply titled Apostolic Succession).
Consider that we have from this early Roman Catholic source that Polycarp and his successors in Asia Minor (at least until the time that Irenaeus wrote this, around 180 A.D.) practiced the true teachings that they learned from the apostles (it should be noted that these churches had several doctrines that significantly differ from those currently held by the Roman Church, some of which are documented in the article Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome).
This is also later (maybe 20 years later) essentially confirmed by Tertullian:
Anyhow the heresies are at best novelties, and have no continuity with the teaching of Christ. Perhaps some heretics may claim Apostolic antiquity: we reply: Let them publish the origins of their churches and unroll the catalogue of their bishops till now from the Apostles or from some bishop appointed by the Apostles, as the Smyrnaeans count from Polycarp and John, and the Romans from Clement and Peter; let heretics invent something to match this (Tertullian. Liber de praescriptione haereticorum. Circa 200 A.D. as cited in Chapman J. Transcribed by Lucy Tobin. Tertullian. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
It is probable that Tertullian was aware of bishops of Rome prior to Clement (as Irenaeus wrote prior to him), as well as bishops of Smyrna prior to Polycarp, but that Tertullian felt that the apostolic succession could only have gone through Polycarp (who he listed first) or Clement. It must be understood that Tertullian’s writing above, according The Catholic Encyclopedia, is one of the most important writings regarding the Roman Catholic Church. Specifically The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches:
Among the writings of the Fathers, the following are the principal works which bear on the doctrine of the Church: ST. IRENÆUS, Adv. Hereses in P.G., VII; TERTULLIAN, De Prescriptionibus in P. L… (Joyce G.H. Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter. The Church. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III. Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
Thus Roman Catholics themselves must recognize the importance of these statements by Tertullian (as well as Irenaeus)–there were two churches with proper apostolic claims as far as he was concerned. And not just Rome–but one in Asia Minor that had been led by the Apostle John through Polycarp and his descendants.
Protestant Charles Merritt Nielsen wrote:
Polycarp would not tolerate any deviation from the traditions of Christianity as he understood them, and he seemed forever asking his readers to turn back to the faith delivered to us from the beginning. (Nielson CM. “Polycarp: Model for Seminarians” Theology Today 30, no. 2 (1973): 178-180 as cited in Polycarp Versus The Progressives. HeidelBlog.net, Copyright © 2020 R. Scott Clark.)
Polycarp … he was not only unoriginal, he seemed content and determined to be so. For instance, most of his letter is made up of quotations from Christian writings” (Nielson CM. “Polycarp: Model for Seminarians” Theology Today 30, no. 2 (1973): 178-180; as cited in Brown JM. Life of Polycarp. Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, March 1, 2013, p. 6).
Yes, Polycarp stuck to scripture, taught the Bible, and did not act like it should be changed.
The old Radio Church of God taught:
At Patmos the apostle John was finally released. Again at Ephesus he trained Polycarp who later carried forward the work of John and Philip. Polycarp and Polycrates are the last leaders of the Church in this part of the world of which we have any record. (Lesson 49 – I Will Build My Church. Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course, 1967)
The late Pastor General of the old Worldwide/Radio Church of God wrote:
Jesus prophesied, “I will build my church.” That Church, foretold Jesus, would never be extinguished. … The true Church continued, a tiny “little flock,” almost unnoticed by the world …
It is significant that after his release John trained Polycarp elder of Smyrna, a city near Ephesus in the province of Asia. … At neighboring Smyrna, Polycarp presided over the Church of God for half a century after John’s death. Polycarp stood up boldly for the truth while many fell away and began having fellowship with the Catholic bishops of Rome. History relates that following the example of Peter, Paul and John, Polycarp wrote many letters to congregations and individuals, though all these have perished, save one in an edited version. (Armstrong HW. The Church They Couldn’t Destroy. Good News, December 1981)
The … CHURCH OF GOD … is in direct continuous succession from the apostolic Church founded by Christ A.D. 31 (Armstrong HW. Why The Church? Good News, August 14, 1978)
The old Worldwide Church of God also published the following related to Polycarp:
After the death of the apostle John about A.D. 100, leadership of the churches in Asia Minor was in the hands of Polycarp. That was not an easy time in history. The Roman government had begun to persecute the Christian Church in the days of. Nero. Other emperors followed suit over the next several centuries.
In the A.D. 150s the Romans severely persecuted Christians in Asia Minor. Polycarp, then an old man …, still provided the spiritual leadership for the oppressed Christians.
The Roman senate had declared it atheism not to believe in the Roman gods. To be a declared follower of Jesus Christ, whom Pontius Pilate had crucified in A.D. 31, was forbidden.
Christians were sometimes called before magistrates and told to renounce their beliefs. Those who didn’t were often tortured or cast into the arenas to fight wild beasts.Such was the scene in A.D. 156 in the city of Smyrna where Polycarp resided.
A recent plague and an earthquake had convinced the superstitious townspeople that Christians were to blame for the disasters. “The Roman gods must be displeased,” they reasoned.
In the middle of one cold night in February, Roman soldiers placed Polycarp under arrest. The next day as the Roman games were coming to a conclusion, he was brought before the magistrates and ordered to renounce Jesus. Polycarp’s answer was, as quoted by the early church historian Eusebius: “Eighty and six years have I served him, and he never did me wrong; and how can I now blaspheme my King that has saved me?…Hear my free confession. I am a Christian.”
The crowd demanded the lions be let loose. But the time for wild beast sports was over.
In a rage they heaped broken pieces of wood together and bound Polycarp to a pole to be burned at the stake. A great wind blew the flames away from Polycarp, and an executioner thrust a sword into him — ending the life of one of the great leaders of Christianity.
It is this kind of courage and dedication that truly makes a great leader. (Kelly R. Four Great Qualities of Leadership. Plain Truth, September 1984)
Interestingly, although he is not in the list of Bishops of Rome (since he was not Roman, that is logical), Polycarp is mentioned in the article on titled Hierarchy of the Early Church in The Catholic Encyclopedia:
A. Mention of Bishops by Polycrates
In a synodal letter written by Polycrates of Ephesus about the year 190 this bishop, sixty-five years of age, speaks of seven of his relatives who had been bishops before him. Besides these he mentions Polycarp and Papirius of Smyrna, Thraseas of Eumenea, Sagaris of Laodicea and Melito of Sardes (Eusebius, “Hist. Eccles.”, v, 24, 2 sq.) (Borkowski S. De Dunin. Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter. Hierarchy of the Early Church. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
Polycarp denounced heretics:
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time — a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles — that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.” And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, “Dost thou know me?” “I do know thee, the first-born of Satan.”(Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses. Book III, Chapter 3, Verse 4. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885)
Valentinus, Cerinthus, and Marcion are considered by Greco-Roman Catholic and other scholars to have been Gnostic heretics, while Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus were claimed bishops of Rome. Thus these quotes from Irenaeus show that the supposed Roman bishops did not have a higher leadership role than Polycarp of Smyrna had, because it apparently took the stature of the visiting Polycarp to turn many Romans away from the Gnostic heretics. The other reality is that according to Tertullian, it took the Church of Rome decades before they got rid of those heretics (Tertullian. The Prescription against Heretics, Chapter 30. Translated by Peter Holmes. Electronic Version Copyright © 2006 by Kevin Knight. All rights reserved), thus suggesting that Rome tolerated heresies much more than Polycarp did.
Cerinthus taught allegorizing of scripture, taught that non-biblical tradition was more important than scripture, blended Gnostic teachings with the Bible, implemented improper festivals, claimed to be an apostle, and claimed that angels gave him messages. Although the Apostle John denounced him, many of his teachings eventually found their way into the Church of Rome. More on Cerinthus can be found in the article Cerinthus: An early heretic.
Marcion was an early heretic to attempt to do away with the Sabbath and was claimed to be the successor of Simon Magus (Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses, Book 1, Chapter 27:1-2). Valentinus of Rome, who Polycarp denounced, who is believed to have been the first affiliated with Christianity to teach the Trinitarian concept of three hypostasis or make any clear statement of ‘equality’ regarding three alleged persons of God–Valentinus also promoted the ‘eighth day’ ogdoad–a Gnostic concept.
Yet understand, that the Church of Rome tolerated Marcion and Valentinus for decades after Polycarp denounced them. It should also be noted that even Roman Catholic recognized sources allege that Marcion and descendants of Valentinus had ties to the famous Simon Magus, who was mentioned in Acts 8:5-25.
Furthermore, Irenaeus also reported the following about Polycarp’s visit to Rome and his meeting with the Roman Bishop Anicetus:
And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points…For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not Irenaeus. (FRAGMENTS FROM THE LOST WRITINGS OF IRENAEUS. Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Excerpted from Volume I of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors); American Edition copyright © 1885. Electronic version copyright © 1997 by New Advent, Inc.).
Apparently Anicetus conceded enough (such as about Polycarp’s position on that and probably about Marcion—who Anicetus agreed was a heretic) that no recorded major ‘blowup’ between the two survived. It appears that Anicetus, tried to satisfy Polycarp to some degree, and tried to appear not to be a complete heretic.
But were the churches in Asia Minor and Rome truly in peace after that?
No, they were not.
The Greco-Roman Catholic monk Epiphanius wrote:
For long ago, even from the earliest days, the Passover was celebrated at different times in the church … In the time of Polycarp and Victor, the east was at odds with the west and they would not accept letters of commendation from each other (Epiphanius. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80), De Fide). Section VI, Verse 9,7. Translated by Frank Williams. EJ Brill, New York, 1994, p.411).
It appears likely that Polycarp, when he returned to Asia Minor, told the Christians there that he was successful in turning some away from heretics such as Marcion and Valentinus. He probably was so disgusted by his Roman experience that he let those in Asia Minor know that they should not receive doctrine or other instruction from any in Rome–he also specifically would not change Passover observance to Sunday. This seems to be confirmed by Polycrates’ writings a few decades later who was quite willing to tell the ‘Bishop of Rome’ that none in his region would accept Victor’s views above the Bible. Polycarp likely told Polycrates’ personally or told someone in contact with Polycrates’. Here is something from Polycrates to Victor, the Bishop of Rome:
We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead ? All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘ We ought to obey God rather than man’…I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus (Eusebius. The History of the Church, Book V, Chapter XXIV, Verses 2-7 . Translated by A. Cushman McGiffert. Digireads.com Publishing, Stilwell (KS), 2005, p. 114).
Note that Polycrates:
1) Claimed to be a follower of the teachings passed on from the Apostle John
2) Claimed that he was being faithful to the teachings of the Gospel
3) Relied on the position that teachings from the Bible were above those of Roman-accepted tradition
4) Claimed that he was being faithful to the teachings passed down to him
5) Was then the spokesperson for many in Asia Minor
6) Claimed he and his predecessors observed the time of unleavened bread
7) Refused to accept the authority of Roman tradition over the Bible
8) Refused to accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome–he preferred to be separate (cf. Revelation 18:4)
9) Claimed that his life was to be governed by Jesus and not opinions of men
So what happened next?
Eusebius immediately continues with,
Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate (Ibid).
Note that the Bishop of Rome wanted a parting of the ways from those who kept to the Bible related to the date for Passover.
Eamon Duffy, a Roman Catholic scholar and a member of the Pontifical Historical Commission claims that although Eusebius implies that Victor called for some significant synods, everyone responded to Victor, and then he attempted to excommunicate those in Asia Minor (though was stopped from doing so by Irenaeus per Eusebius. Church History. Book V, Chapter 24, verses 11,18, p. 115), this is probably not what happened (Duffy, Eamon. Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes. Yale University Press, New Haven (CT), 2002, pp. 15-16).
Essentially E. Duffy seems to believe that there were some in or near Rome who still observed Passover on the 14th. As this differed from Victor’s practices, Victor asked what the practices in other areas he had contact with were. Then he asked what others did, mainly in Alexandria and Greco-Jerusalem, then decided to put out of his Roman area churches those who kept the 14th (at that time some Roman churches met on Saturday and Sunday, and one would suspect that those who met on Saturday were more inclined to keep Passover on the 14th). E. Duffy seems to feel that the local churches who kept the 14th Passover may have asked those in Asia Minor for their assistance to deal with Victor, perhaps because they sometimes interacted with his followers (private meeting places for an illegal religion were scarce in Rome, and those loyal to Rome and Asia Minor apparently may have sometimes met together).
There are many reasons that E. Duffy seems to be correct, including Polycrates’ writing.
Dr. Baggati noted that in the 2nd century, at least three bishops of Rome (Pius I, Eleutheris, and Victor I) also pushed back against attempts to return to original Judeao-Christians practices (Bagatti, Bellarmino. Translated by Eugene Hoade. The
Church from the Circumcision. Nihil obstat: Marcus Adinolfi. Imprimi potest: Herminius Roncari. Imprimatur: +Albertus Gori, die 26 Junii 1970. Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem, p. 25). Hence, true succession of doctrine was not coming from the them.
Around the time that Polycrates wrote, Serapion of Antioch, after visiting what he thought was part of the faithful church, wrote:
3. For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.
4. When I visited you I supposed that all of you held the true faith, and as I had not read the Gospel which they put forward under the name of Peter, I said, If this is the only thing which occasions dispute among you, let it be read. But now having learned, from what has been told me, that their mind was involved in some heresy, I will hasten to come to you again. Therefore, brethren, expect me shortly.
5. But you will learn, brethren, from what has been written to you, that we perceived the nature of the heresy of Marcianus, and that, not understanding what he was saying, he contradicted himself.
6. For having obtained this Gospel from others who had studied it diligently, namely, from the successors of those who first used it, whom we call Docetæ; (for most of their opinions are connected with the teaching of that school ) we have been able to read it through, and we find many things in accordance with the true doctrine of the Saviour, but some things added to that doctrine, which we have pointed out for you farther on. So much in regard to Serapion. (Serapion of Antioch. Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890).
Serapion condemned the so-called Gospel of Peter which is first known writing that claimed that the Lord’s Day was Sunday as he apparently accidentally visited a church that he thought was supposed to be faithful, but instead found that they were in the “other group” (see also Early Church History: Who Were the Two Major Groups Professed Christ in the Second and Third Centuries?)–hence he parted ways from them.
Notice an explanation for why there was the adoption of Greek philosophy and paganism related to the 3rd century
Gregory the Wonder Worker, given by the late Roman Catholic Cardinal Newman:
Confiding then in the power of Christianity to resist the infection of evil, and to transmute the very instruments and appendages of demon-worship to evangelical use, … the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise, to adopt, to imitate, or to sanctify the existing rites and customs of the population, as well as the philosophy of the educated class.
St. Gregory Thaumaturgus supplies the first instance of this economy. … The bodies of the Martyrs were distributed in different places, and the people assembled and made merry, as the year came round, holding festival in their honour. This indeed was a proof of his great wisdom … for, perceiving that the childish and untrained populace were retained in their idolatrous error by creature comforts, in order that what was of first importance should at any rate be secured to them, viz. that they should look to God in place of their vain rites, he allowed them to be merry, jovial, and gay at the monuments of the holy Martyrs, as if their behaviour would in time undergo a spontaneous change into greater seriousness and strictness, since faith would lead them to it; which has actually been the happy issue in that population, all carnal gratification having turned into a spiritual form of rejoicing.”
There is no reason to suppose that the licence here spoken of passed the limits of harmless though rude festivity; for it is observable that the same reason, the need of holydays for the multitude, is assigned by Origen, St. Gregory’s master, to explain the establishment of the Lord’s Day also, and the Paschal and the Pentecostal festivals, which have never been viewed as unlawful compliances; and, moreover, the people were in fact eventually reclaimed from their gross habits by his indulgent policy, a successful issue which could not have followed an accommodation to what was sinful. (Newman JH, Cardinal. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. J. Toovey, 1845, p. 358).
Cardinal Newman explained pagan items were considered to be an evangelical tool (ibid, p. 358) and that was another reason that the Greco-Roman Catholic churches parted from the way. Please understand that the appeal to “the philosophy of the educated class” means that pagan philosophy (as taught by the ancient Greeks and Romans, and expanded by people like Clement and Origen) was to be accepted–and despite claiming sola Scriptura, most Protestants have accepted pagan philosophies and doctrines in their faith.
Notice what a former Roman Catholic priest wrote about Emperor Constantine of the 4th century:
Constantine … No one was ever more devoted to than he to the sun god, Sol … Emperor Constantine never relinquished his title of Pontifex Maximus, head of the pagan state cult … Twice married, he murdered Crispus his son by his first wife, in 326. He had his second wife drowned in the bath; killed his eleven year old nephew, then his brother-in-law, after giving him assurances of safe conduct under oath …
Constantine was a soldier at a time when shedding blood was unacceptable to the church … When Constantine called bishops his beloved brethren and styled himself ‘Bishop of Bishops’, which popes later appropriated, he was not a Christian, not even a catechumen. Yet no one remotely approached his stature and authority. Even the Bishop of Rome … was in comparison, a non-entity … All bishops agreed that he was ‘the inspired oracle, the apostle of Church wisdom’ …
It is another paradox of history that it was Constantine, a pagan, who invented the idea of a council of all Christian communities … At Nicaea the Founding Father of Ecumenical Councils gathered 300 hundred bishops, having laid on free transport … Maybe he simply wanted to show that he was in charge. He proposed what came to be called ‘the orthodox view’ of God’s Son being ‘of one substance’ with the Father. All dissident bishops caved in, except for two whom Constantine promptly deposed and sent packing … His cynical use of Christ, in which everyone including the Roman Bishop acquiesced, meant a profound falsification of the Gospel message and the injection of standards alien to it. (De Rosa, pp. 35,36,43,44)
A committed sun god/Mithras devotee came up with the Council of Nicea.
It was about one year after conquering the Eastern Empire (thus resurrecting the combined Roman Empire) the sun-worshiping Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicea. That Council declared:
1) The Roman Sun-day or day of the Sun was to be the Christian Sabbath.
2) Rules regarding seasonal prayers, penance, and indulgences.
3) That the Greco-Romans believed that Jesus was one substance with God the Father.
4) Passover would be on Sunday and not the biblical date of Nisan 14.
Perhaps it should be mentioned that this Council did not prohibit pagan sun-worship, but instead decreed that true Christians should not keep the seventh-day Sabbath nor should they be allowed to keep Passover on the 14th.
That was a clear departure from the faith. Notice the following warnings from the Apostle Paul from 2 Protestant translations of scripture:
12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; 13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. (Hebrews 3:12-14, NKJV)
1 We may fear, then, lest a promise being left of entering into His rest, anyone of you may seem to have come short, 2 for we also are having good news proclaimed, even as they, but the word heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard,
3 for we enter into the rest—we who believed, as He said, “So I swore in My anger, They will [not] enter into My rest”; and yet the works were done from the foundation of the world,
4 for He spoke in a certain place concerning the seventh [day] thus: “And God rested in the seventh day from all His works”; 5 and in this [place] again, “They will [not] enter into My rest”; 6 since then, it remains for some to enter into it, and those who first heard good news did not enter in because of unbelief—
7 again He limits a certain day, “Today,” in David saying, after so long a time, as it has been said, “Today, if you may hear His voice, you may not harden your hearts,”
8 for if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken after these things concerning another day; 9 there remains, then, a Sabbath rest to the people of God, 10 for he who entered into His rest, he also rested from his works, as God from His own. 11 May we be diligent, then, to enter into that rest, that no one may fall in the same example of the unbelief, (Hebrews 4:1-11, Literal Standard Version)
Those who push against the 7th day Sabbath and accepted the changed date for Passover have departed from the faith–they parted from THE WAY.
Is obedience necessary for THE WAY? Yes, the Apostles said:
29. … Peter and the apostles answered and said, “We are obligated to obey God rather than men. …
32. And we are His witnesses of these things, as is also the Holy Spirit, which God has given to those who obey Him.” (Acts 5:29, 32, AFV)
That being said, here is some of what the Greco-Roman Catholic historian Epiphanius wrote on Passover in the mid-4th Century:
… the emperor … convened a council of 318 bishops … in the city of Nicea … They passed certain ecclesiastical canons at the council besides, and at the same time decreed in regard to the Passover that there must be one unanimous concord on the celebration of God’s holy and supremely excellent day. For it was variously observed by people …
Eventually, those in parts of Europe (e.g. Britain and Germany) changed the name from Passover to Easter (Ostern in German). Easter and Ostern are other names for the Babylonian goddess Ishtar (which can be pronounced as Easter), the so-called queen of heaven (also called Ashtaroth in the Bible in 1 Samuel 12:10). The “Queen of Heaven” is also a title that has been associated with Europa, for whom the continent of Europe is named.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church goes so far as to claim:
1170 At the Council of Nicea in 325, all the Churches agreed that Easter, the Christian Passover, should be celebrated on the Sunday following the first full moon (14 Nisan) after the vernal equinox.
This simply is not really true, and it should not be taught in the modern Catechism. Passover was still kept on the correct day by the scattered faithful church and always has been, since the time of Christ. The fact that the Emperor got an agreement from those he summoned did not change the Bible (or its truly faithful followers).
It should be noted that it is understood, even by some Roman Catholic scholars, that “Judeo-Christian” churches were not represented on at that Council. Notice what priest Bellarmino Bagatti wrote:
… the inhabitants of Syria, of Cilicia and of Mesopotamia were still celebrating Easter {Passover} with the Jews …
The importance of the matters to be discussed and the great division that existed had led Constantine to bring together a big number of bishops, including confessors of the faith, in order to give the impression that the whole of Christendom was represented.
In fact … the churches of Jewish stock had had no representation … From this we can conclude that no Judaeo-Christian bishop participated in the Council. Either they were not invited or they declined to attend. And so the capitulars had a free hand to establish norms for certain practices without meeting opposition or hearing other view points. Once the road was open future Councils would continue on these lines, thus deepening the breach between the Christians of two-stocks. The point of view of the Judaeo-Christians, devoid of Greek philosophical formation, was that of keeping steadfast to the Testimonia, and therefore not to admit any word foreign to the Bible, including Homoousion. (Bagatti, Bellarmino. Translated by Eugene Hoade. The Church from the Gentiles in Palestine. Nihil obstat: Ignatius Mancini, 1 Februari 1970. Imprimi potest: Herminius Roncari, 26 Februari 1970. Imprimatur: +Albertus Gori, die 28 Februarii 1970. Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem, 1971, pp. 47-48)
So, there were Christians who believed in basing doctrine only on the Bible and they did not attend Nicea or any of the later Councils. Mainly, if not only, those who seemed to accept aspects of “Greek philosophical formation” attended. Thus, no true Christian should consider that these Councils were called of God.
Constantine’s church historian, Eusebius, recorded the following details about Constantine convening that Council:
But before this time another most virulent disorder had existed, and long afflicted the Church; I mean the difference respecting the salutary feast of Easter {Passover}. For while one party asserted that the Jewish custom should be adhered to, the other affirmed that the exact recurrence of the period should be observed, without following the authority of those …
Then as if to bring a divine array against this enemy, he convoked a general council, and invited the speedy attendance of bishops from all quarters, in letters expressive of the honorable estimation in which he held them. Nor was this merely the issuing of a bare command but the emperor’s good will contributed much to its being carried into effect: for he allowed some the use of the public means of conveyance, while he afforded to others an ample supply of horses for their transport. The place, too, selected for the synod, the city Nicæa in Bithynia … In effect, the most distinguished of God’s ministers from all the churches which abounded in Europe, Lybia, and Asia were here assembled … Constantine is the first prince of any age who bound together such a garland as this with the bond of peace, and presented it to his Saviour as a thank-offering for the victories he had obtained over every foe, thus exhibiting in our own times a similitude of the apostolic company …
The result was that they were not only united as concerning the faith, but that the time for the celebration of the salutary feast of Easter was agreed on by all …
What was the justification for this, or for Eusebius calling those who kept biblical practices “this enemy”?
Well, although the word Pascha (which means Passover) is mistranslated as Easter above and below, Constantine clearly felt that the Jews were detestable and that he did not want his church to follow practices like theirs. Notice what Constantine declared:
At this meeting the question concerning the most holy day of Easter {Passover} was discussed, and it was resolved by the united judgment of all present, that this feast ought to be kept by all and in every place on one and the same day. For what can be more becoming or honorable to us than that this feast from which we date our hopes of immortality, should be observed unfailingly by all alike, according to one ascertained order and arrangement? And first of all, it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. For we have it in our power, if we abandon their custom, to prolong the due observance of this ordinance to future ages, by a truer order, which we have preserved from the very day of the passion until the present time. Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way. A course at once legitimate and honorable lies open to our most holy religion. Beloved brethren, let us with one consent adopt this course, and withdraw ourselves from all participation in their baseness.
It perhaps should be noted that Jesus kept Passover on the 14th. Calling the “Jewish crowd” detestable is not appropriate for real Christians. Jesus did not implement Sunday Passover as a “different way.” This is further evidence that those who are following Constantine’s decrees are not following those made by a true Christian.
Scholars usually recognize the anti-Judaic motivation for the repudiation of the Jewish reckoning of Passover and adoption of Easter-Sunday instead. Joachim Jeremias attributes such a development to “the inclination to break away from Judaism.” In a similar vein, J.B. Lightfoot explains that Rome and Alexandria adopted Easter-Sunday to avoid “even the semblance of Judaism” (Bacchiocchi S. God’s Festival in Scripture and History. Biblical Perspectives. Befriend Springs (MI), 1995, pp. 101,102,103).
In the 4th century, the Greco-Roman Catholic Epiphanius, himself, actually admitted that the church used to observe the 14th for Passover when he wrote:
Audians … they choose to celebrate the Passover with the Jews–that is they contentiously celebrate the Passover at the same time as the Jews are holding their Festival of Unleavened Bread. And indeed that this used to be the church’s custom.
Thus, Epiphanius seemed to realize that Passover on the 14th was the original Passover date, even for the early Greco-Romans, since he wrote “this used to be the church’s custom.” See also the article The Passover Plot.
So, the unity that came from the pagan emperor’s Council of Nicea was against the original faith and practices of Christians.
Here is a report from a Roman Catholic scholar about matters in Jerusalem that Emperor Constantine commanded the death penalty for Christians who would not eat pork:
That there existed strife between the different branches of the faithful can easily be gathered from the expression of the anonymous pilgrim of Bordeaux in 333, who says that the three basilicas were erected by the gentile Christians “at the command of Constantine”, that is by force, and from the late account of Eutychius (PG 111,1012-1013) that, just at this time, the faithful while they were leaving the church on Easter day, were forced to eat pork under the pain of death. We know how the Judaeo-Christians refused this in order not to transgress the Mosaic law to which they held there were bound (Bagatti, Bellarmino. Translated by Eugene Hoade. The Church from the Circumcision. Nihil obstat: Marcus Adinolfi, 13 Maii 1970. Imprimi potest: Herminius Roncari, 14 Junii 1970. Imprimatur: +Albertus Gori, die 26 Junii 1970. Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem, 1971, pp. 13-14).
A 10th-11th century Islamic Arab document professes to have a Judeo-Christian perspective of the Council of Nicea. Here is some of what Shlomo Pines summarized from that Arabic report of that Council and one that preceded it:
Constantine called a gathering of Christian monks with a view to the formulation of obligatory religious beliefs … However, some of them disagreed with this text … There was a scission and the symbol of faith which had been formulated was not regarded as valid.
Thereupon, three hundred and eighteen men gathered in Nicaea and formulated a symbol of faith, which was accepted and made obligatory by Constantine. People who dissented from it were killed and professions of faith differing from it suppressed.
In this way people who professed the religion of Christ came to do all that is reprehensible; they worshipped the cross, observed the Roman religious rites and ate pork. Those who did not eat it were killed. (Pines, pp. 32,43)
So, according to an Islamic reporter, there were Christians who were upset by the changes that Emperor Constantine enforced, such as crosses and Roman religious rites. Furthermore, the same reporter stated that the “Jewish Christians” denounced the use of incense in Christian churches as “an adaptation of a Pagan custom” and that they had to become a clandestine group.
Regarding this early time period, the theological historian Bart Ehrman noted:
By the early fourth century, Christianity had almost completely separated from Judaism, the religion of Jesus and his apostles … By early fourth century, non-Jewish Christianity had become a major world religion. (Ehrman B. From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity, Part 2. The Teaching Company, Chantilly (VA), 2004, p. 47)
There was clearly a separation. But it was the separation between the faithful and the larger group of unfaithful.
Jesus warned:
24 “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, (Luke 13:24)
13 Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)
And with various partings of THE way, we have seen that prophesy fulfilled.
Roman Catholic priest Malachi Martin lived and worked in Vatican City for years. He was deeply involved in researching and writing about Church history, theology, and the inner workings of the Roman Catholic Church. In a book he wrote, Malachi Martin reported a meeting between Jewish Christians and Bishop of Rome Sylvester I, but gave no source (so, perhaps, it may have come from the archives in the Vatican library?):
Jewish Christians … occupied the oldest Christian churches in the Middle East and whose leaders were always from the family of Jesus himself. … they shunned all worldly power … their first bishop was James, first cousin of Jesus. …
A meeting between Silvester and the Jewish Christian leaders took place in 318. … The vital interview was not, as far as we know, recorded, but the issues were very well known, and it is probable the Joses, the oldest of the Christian Jews, spoke on behalf of the desposyni and the rest.
That most hallowed name, desposyni, had been respected by all believers in the first century and a half of Christian history. The word literally meant, in Greek, “belonging to the Lord.” …
Silvester knew their history well. Jewish Christians had composed the only church ever in Jerusalem until the year 135. … Jewish Christian churches were set up all over Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia … and always in quarrel with Greek Christians who refused to … observe the Torah …
They therefore asked Silvester to revoke his confirmation of Greek Christian bishops at Jerusalem, in Antioch, in Ephesus, and in Alexandria, and to name instead desposynos bishops to take their place. …
Silvester curtly and decisively dismissed the claims of the Jewish Christians . He told them that the mother church was now in Rome, with the bones of the Apostle Peter, and he insisted that they accept the Greek bishops to lead them.
It was the last known discussion between the Jewish Christians of the old mother church and the non-Jewish Christians of the new mother church. By his adaption, Silvester, backed by Constantine … The Jewish Christians had no place in such a church structure. …
A few … pass into the anonymity of the … Eastern rites–Syriac, Assyrian, Greek, Armenians. (Martin M. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church. Bantam edition, 1983, pp. 30-32).
So, apparently some who are long-descended nephews of Jesus did attempt to see if the Church of Rome would accept various aspects the original faith, but they were denied.
Sylvester, who was a contemporary to Emperor Constantine—a man who detested Jews as well as Christians with practices he considered to be Jewish— refused to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3), even when he was reminded of aspects of it.
The Cathari believed that the 4th century Bishop Sylvester (they were not called popes then) was a/the antichrist and all successors were apostates (Robertson JC. History of the Christian Church: A.D. 64-1517, Volume 3. J. Murray, 1866, p. 194).
So, yes, there was a parting of the way.
The faithful kept the original faith, but the Greco-Roman confederation went a different way.
Consider also something that happened later in the 4th century.
Since Constantine’s declarations did not stop everyone from properly observing Passover, a later Roman Emperor named Theodosius, after he became a baptized “Christian,” decreed the death penalty:
Edicts of Theodosius against the heretics, A.D. 380-394 … Theodosius … decreed that … by the death of the offender; and the same capital punishment was inflicted on the Audians, or Quartodecimans, who should dare to perpetrate the atrocious crime of celebrating on an improper day the festival (Gibbon E. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume III, Chapter XXVII. ca. 1776-1788).
The various enactments against heretics are contained in the Code of Theodosius (16. tit. 5. s. 6—23; and the commentary of Gothofredus): the Eunomians, whose guilt consisted in denying any resemblance between the two sub-tances, and who were accordingly Anomoeans, were also deprived of the power of testamentary disposition, and of taking by testamentary gift: they seem, in fact, to have been deprived of all the rights of citizens. The Manichaean heresy was punishable with death; and the same penalty threatened the Audians or the Quartodecimans, who celebrated the festival of Easter on the wrong day. To the reign of Theodosius belonged the glory or the infamy of establishing Inquisitors of Faith, who seem to have been specially enjoined to look after the crime of the Quartodecimans. (Smith W. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology: Oarses-Zygia. J. Murray, 1890 Item notes: v. 3, p. 1064)
Theodosius was a persecuting Greco-Roman Catholic, was endorsed by the Greco-Roman churches, called the faithful heretics, and killed people for following Polycarp’s (as well as others’) example of keeping Passover on the 14th of Nisan.
Is Theodosius’ order to kill those that followed the example of Jesus and John to observe the Passover on the 14th instead of Sunday a sign of a true Christian leader or more of a sign of a supporter of antichrist? Notice that the office of the “Inquisitors” was actually first formed to deal with people who kept Passover on the original biblical date–did you know that the date of Passover was considered to be that important?
Centuries after many compromisers switched to Sunday, the name of what was supposed to be the observance of Passover was changed in some Teutonic languages (English, German) to Easter.
Easter/Eostre was the name of a Babylonian sex goddess (often spelled Ishtar, but pronounced about the same as Easter). Ishtar was the “queen of heaven” who was celebrated each Spring by the pagans. Various non-biblical trappings were part of the Ishtar celebration that are similar to many that who observe Easter today.
That the term Easter comes from paganism is confirmed by The Catholic Encyclopedia:
The English term, according to the Ven. Bede (De temporum ratione, I, v), relates to Estre, a Teutonic goddess of the rising light of day and spring, which deity … Anglo-Saxon, eâster, eâstron; Old High German, ôstra, ôstrara, ôstrarûn; German, Ostern. April was called easter-monadh. (Holweck, Easter)
As the above indicates, instead of Ishtar, some believe “Easter” was derived from the pagan-German goddess Eostre/Ostara (who also had ties to Ishtar). She was the “bringer of light” or the “goddess of the dawn,” and is sometimes called “the queen of heaven.” She was celebrated each Spring. She looks to be a direct tie to Easter sunrise services (since the Bible instead, has Passover right after sunset) as well as rabbits. Her favourite flower was the rose which is also the flower that the Roman Catholics associate with their version of ‘Mary’ (Philips G. The Virgin Mary Conspiracy: The True Father of Christ and the Tomb of the Virgin. Bear & Company, 2005, pp. 218-219).
Various researchers, such as the 19th century scholar L.L.C. Hamilton, have taught that Ishtar was both the “Astarthe” (1 Kings 11:33 DRB) or “Astarte” (1 Kings 11:33 NJB/NABRE) or “Ashtoreth” (3 Kingdoms 11:30, OSB) condemned in the Old Testament AND the Eostre of the Germans (Hamilton LLC. Ishtar and Izdubar, the epic of Babylon; or, The Babylonian goddess of love and the hero and warrior king, restored in mod. verse by L.L.C. Hamilton. 1884, pp. 207-208).
Whether originally from a Babylonian goddess, a later German one, or a combination of both, ‘Easter’ is a term, not for our Saviour, but of a pagan goddess. Items such as “hot cross buns” would not have been used by early Christians for many reasons, including the fact that they kept the Days of Unleavened Bread, which comes right after Passover. And that the Bible warns against making similar cakes to the queen of heaven (Jeremiah 7:18, 44:16-29).
Original Christians did not refer to any of their annual biblical observations with the names of pagan gods and goddesses—nor do we in the Continuing Church of God do so today.
We also still keep Passover on the original date like the early faithful Christian leaders did—who followed the practices and the WAY of Jesus and His apostles.
Even a Protestant scholar has realized that 4th century faith many adopted was very different from the original Christian faith:
The student of history cannot fail to note the wide difference between the Christianity of the New Testament period and that of the fourth century. The religion which Christ taught was a direct outgrowth of Judaism. His mission was “not to destroy but to fulfil.” This He did by giving a higher conception and a broader view of all which Judaism had held hitherto. He gave a new meaning to the fatherhood of God. He explained and enforced the moral precepts of the Old Testament, developing their deeper spiritual sense, and giving them a new application to the inner life of men. He enlarged Judaism without destroying it. He clarified and intensified the ten commandments. He discarded the outward formalities of the Jews, and “reached the heart of things” by His interpretation of the ancient Scriptures, by His new precepts, and by His example. He developed Christianity within the Jewish Church, making it the efflorescence of all that was best in the ancient dispensation.
Christ presented love for God, for truth, and for man, as the mainspring of action in all religious living. Under His teachings Christianity arose as a new life, springing from the law of God, written in the hearts of men. New Testament Christianity was a life born of love, and finding expression in loving obedience. It was a system of right living, as in the divine presence, and by the help of the divine Spirit. (Lewis AH. PAGANISM SURVIVING IN CHRISTIANITY. G.P. Putnam, 1882, p. 31)
The true faith did not compromise with paganism.
The true faith has more ‘Jewish’ characteristics than many who claim to be Christian have accepted.
Sadly, most who profess Christianity have departed from the true way.
Look at these admissions from the Protestant scholar and theologian H. Brown:
It is impossible to document what we now call orthodoxy in the first two centuries of Christianity. … but we can document orthodoxy for all the centuries since then—in other words for close to seventeen centuries of the church’s existence. Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 5)
Early Protestant “orthodoxy” cannot be documented. Why is it IMPOSSIBLE? Well, because much of it was never part of the original Christian faith.
Dr. Brown also wrote:
Although classical theology is certainly not without its problems, historically it is almost always the case that the appeal to the Bible alone … leads to the reemergence of ancient heresies … The Reformation began with the slogan “To the sources!” and sought to deal a fatal blow to the place of church tradition in shaping life and faith … Despite their efforts not to be influenced by the authority of tradition, each of the major Reformation churches found itself borrowing from the past and building up a traditionalism of its own … when the Anabaptists and other radicals discovered Scripture to be teaching things the Lutherans found detestable, Lutherans learned the usefulness of tradition … (ibid, pp. 335,350-351).
So, Protestant scholars actually claim that relying on the Bible alone leads to the emergence of early Christian views that they consider to be heretical. “Tradition” is NOT useful against scripture! How can appealing to the Bible be heresy?
THIS IS A PARTING FROM THE WAY!
The historical reality is that when early Protestants did not like biblical teachings, they latched onto traditions of men. Jesus condemned supposedly ‘Bible believing’ people for doing that:
9 … “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. … 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.” (Mark 7:9-13)
Do you follow the Jesus of the Bible or do you prefer traditions accepted by Protestants and others?
Consider the following:
1 “Woe to the rebellious children,” says the LORD, “Who take counsel, but not of Me, And who devise plans, but not of My Spirit, That they may add sin to sin; … 8 Now go, write it before them on a tablet, And note it on a scroll, That it may be for time to come, Forever and ever: 9 That this is a rebellious people, Lying children, Children who will not hear the law of the LORD … (Isaiah 30:1,8-9)
Because of the acceptance of traditions, some of which came from councils of men and pagan Greek philosophies, most Protestants will not hear, at least parts of, the law of the Lord and His word.
Many do not want to actually do what the God of the Bible wants related to His law. The Apostle Paul gave the following warnings and teaching:
3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia — remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. 5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm. (1 Timothy 1:3-7)
Notice that the purpose of the law is love, yet there are those that strayed and used idle talk to turn people away. This was perhaps the core reason that there was a parting of the ways between the faithful and the bulk of those who claim to follow Jesus.
Jesus came to magnify the law, basically by showing it had to do with love, not just outward show or acts.
And His magnifying the law was prophesied:
21 YHWH has delight for the sake of His righteousness, “” He magnifies law, and makes honorable. (Isaiah 42:21)
21 The Lord is well pleased for His righteousness’ sake; He will exalt the law and make it honorable. (Isaiah 42:21, NKJV)
Yet, many do not accept or understand that, hence they parted from the way
The reality is that those who will look into the Bible and the records of history can find the original “orthodox” faith, which promoted the law, if they really want to know the truth.
Jesus said:
7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8)
However, since Jesus also warned that few would find the way, that brings to mind the following from the Book of Proverbs:
16 The lazy man is wiser in his own eyes
Than seven men who can answer sensibly. (Proverbs 26:16)
Are you one who has asked and sought to find the truth?
Of have you followed the lazy and broad way?
A writer of the Psalms wrote:
30 I have chosen the way of truth; (Psalm 119:30)
Have YOU? Really?
If you are not part of THE WAY, the time to change to God’s way is now.
That said, notice what will happen after Jesus returns:
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,
For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord
As the waters cover the sea. (Isaiah 11:9)20 … your teachers will not be moved into a corner anymore,
But your eyes shall see your teachers.
21 Your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying,
“This is the way, walk in it,”
Whenever you turn to the right hand
Or whenever you turn to the left. (Isaiah 30:20-21)
Yes, there is one RIGHT way.
10 …Paul said, 14 “… I admit that I follow the Way, which they call a cult. I worship the God of our ancestors, and I firmly believe the Jewish law and everything written in the prophets. (Acts 24:10,14, NLT)
After Jesus returns, more will realize that was the ONLY WAY as He laid out the following:
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ (Matthew 7:21-23).
Jesus will make it clear who has departed from the WAY.
Yet, you can know that way now.
The teachings and the practices of the faithful Christian church, which are grounded in scriptures, is the way.
Since the true Church of God has continued from the time of the original apostles, the name Continuing Church of God helps convey that, particularly because we have “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42).
Do not be one who has parted from it.
Some items of related interest may include:
Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God Differs from Protestantism The CCOG is NOT Protestant. This free online book explains how the real Church of God differs from mainstream/traditional Protestants. Several sermons related to the free book are also available: Protestant, Baptist, and CCOG History; The First Protestant, God’s Command, Grace, & Character; The New Testament, Martin Luther, and the Canon; Eucharist, Passover, and Easter; Views of Jews, Lost Tribes, Warfare, & Baptism; Scripture vs. Tradition, Sabbath vs. Sunday; Church Services, Sunday, Heaven, and God’s Plan; Seventh Day Baptists/Adventists/Messianics: Protestant or COG?; Millennial Kingdom of God and God’s Plan of Salvation; Crosses, Trees, Tithes, and Unclean Meats; The Godhead and the Trinity; Fleeing or Rapture?; and Ecumenism, Rome, and CCOG Differences.
Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession? Did the original “catholic church” have doctrines held by the Continuing Church of God? Did Church of God leaders uses the term “catholic church” to ever describe the church they were part of? Here are links to related sermons: Original Catholic Church of God?, Original Catholic Doctrine: Creed, Liturgy, Baptism, Passover, What Type of Catholic was Polycarp of Smyrna?, Tradition, Holy Days, Salvation, Dress, & Celibacy, Early Heresies and Heretics, Doctrines: 3 Days, Abortion, Ecumenism, Meats, Tithes, Crosses, Destiny, and more, Saturday or Sunday?, The Godhead, Apostolic Laying on of Hands Succession, Church in the Wilderness Apostolic Succession List, Holy Mother Church and Heresies, and Lying Wonders and Original Beliefs. Here is a link to that book in the Spanish language: Creencias de la iglesia Católica original.
Beware: Protestants Going Towards Ecumenical Destruction! What is going on in the Protestant world? Are Protestants turning back to their ‘mother church’ in Rome? Does the Bible warn about this? What are Catholic plans and prophecies related to this? Is Protestantism doomed? See also World Council of Churches Peace Plan.
Will the Interfaith Movement Lead to Peace or Sudden Destruction? Is the interfaith movement going to lead to lasting peace or is it warned against? A video sermon of related interest is: Will the Interfaith Movement lead to World War III? and a video sermon is also available: Do You Know That Babylon is Forming?
Did Early Christians Celebrate Easter? If not, when did this happen? Where did Easter come from? Is Easter supposed to be Passover? What do scholars and the Bible reveal? Here is a link to a related video: Amazing Facts About Easter.
Passover and the Early Church Did the early Christians observe Passover? What did Jesus and Paul teach? Why did Jesus die for our sins? There is also a detailed YouTube video available titled History of the Christian Passover.