The Gospel...A History Lesson Part 1

As I was thinking about how to move on from one petal on the TULIP to another, I realized that I couldn't just yet.  We need to do a little history lesson.  This post, and the next 1 or 2 that follow, should've been how I started this series.  For that, I apologize because I'm afraid that this may be a confusing point to insert this bit of information.  It is, however, going to be good information that'll help give understanding where it may be lacking.  It may also be the revelation of some new understanding, which was my case.  I have learned new things through studying for this series of posts.  The historical information in this post has been taken almost entirely from a set of videos I found on you tube called Amazing Grace:  The History and Theology of Calvinism.  They are produced by theapologeticsgroup.com, a website that was created by Eric Holmberg, the host / narrator in this series.  They are probably the best I have seen on this topic.  Thanks to my friend Doug Gilliland for telling me about them.  

Paul told the Ephesians as he was preparing to leave them:

I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.  (Acts 20:29-30)

Paul knew that people from without, and within the church, would come and begin to teach things that were not in accordance with "the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints"  (Jude 3).  That is exactly what began to transpire.

Ever hear of the JW's?  Jehovah's Witnesses?  The heresy they teach is nothing new.  The teaching that Jesus was not God and a created being was proposed and taught long before the Jehovah's Witnesses were even a thought in anyone's mind.  Arianism was unleashed on the church by a man named Arius in the 4th century.  He taught that Jesus was a created being and not divine, just like the JW's.  In 325 AD, a meeting in the city of Nicea, consisting of more than 300 leaders of the church, was convened to discuss this teaching of Arius.  The council concluded that Arius' teaching was heresy and he was condemned as a false teacher.  Athanasius led the charge, the heresy was defeated and, for the most part, put in check in just a few years.  That is where it stayed for many years....defeated.  This is pure speculation on my part but I can only assume that this teaching raised it's head from time to time throughout the years.  But it didn't make a "comeback" until a group of students, led by Charles Taze Russell in the late 19th century, began a bible study and published what they were "learning" in a journal called The Watchtower--Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom.  Had the leadership of the church did in modern times what the leadership did in the time of Arius, the heresy of the JW's would have been squashed.  But, and this is just personal opinion, the churches at large were already infected by horrible doctrine and couldn't take a stand against this or anything else for that matter.  They had not learned from their past.  That is the problem.

At this point, the video made a very good point.  Tradition and church councils do not trump or override Scripture.  R.C. Sproul, who has since passed on to glory, said this:

"Although tradition does not rule our interpretation, it does guide it.  If, upon reading a particular passage, you have come up with an interpretation that has escaped the notice of every other Christian for two thousand years, or has been championed by universally recognized heretics, chances are pretty good that you had better abandon your interpretation"
         
Dr. R.C. Sproul
The Agony of Deceit, pp. 34-35

Protestant churches today, except for the confessional churches such as confessional Lutherans and Presbyterians, do not recite the old creeds of the church fathers and councils from ages past.  Those churches will tell you that they HOLD to these confessions but you will not hear those confessions recited or taught. Why?  I think sometimes it is merely an oversight.  I know solid churches where the biblical gospel is preached and the Scripture is taught and held in high regard but creeds and confessions are not recited, studied or taught.  But then there are churches that intentionally stay away from them.  People who intentionally do not read early church fathers or attempt to learn from them.  Why is this?

People who are raised in a situation that is very rules oriented, strict, overbearing and critical will either become the same way or will have a response of swinging to the other side and be more likely to let things slide and give the benefit of the doubt, even when it may not be the best course of action.  This is because they are trying to be charitable to other people and do not want to offend or hurt.  They do not want to become what they didn't like.  People coming out of churches like this will either embrace that or they will go in the opposite direction.  They may not necessarily go into lawlessness but they will most definitely have a soft edge.  They have been confronted so much and called to the carpet so much that they will be non-confrontational and too forgiving.  In an attempt to keep the peace, things that should be addressed are swept under the rug.  In much the same way, in an attempt to distance themselves from the Roman Catholic Church, which adopted the confessions, creeds and traditions to a fault and elevated them to a status on par with, or even above, Scripture, Protestant churches went in the complete opposite direction, ignoring church history altogether.  This mistake in judgment has been to the detriment of the church as a whole.  Philosopher George Santayana said many years ago:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

This holds true to the church.  If the church cannot remember where it has been; if the church will not remember and learn from the men who have gone before; if the church refuses to hold on to the truths from the past then when some new type of heretical thinking comes our way, which is really not a new type of heretical thinking but something from the past under a different name, the church is caught off guard and horrid teaching is allowed in.  You need look no further than the Word of Faith movement (Montanism and metaphysical cults), the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movement (Montanism), the progressive (Read:  Emergent church, liberal "christianity") movement (thank you Enlightenment).  These sects teach heresy, plain and simple.  And they are mainstream.  Their ideas have infiltrated to a staggering degree.  Yet, the church slumbers away.  

The list could go on and on.  When people say, "Well, I don't need to study commentaries from old, dead guys...I'll just let the Spirit tell me what that means", there's going to be trouble.  Yes, the Spirit is to lead us and illuminate the truth.  But it is not always the Spirit that is leading your understanding, especially if you are coming at the Word or a topic with a decided bent already.  The "spirit" will make the thing mean or say what you want it to mean or say.  It's arrogant to the core to think you don't need to read what those who have gone before think on a subject.  That type of thinking has caused much damage to individuals in particular and the church at large.