This blog is dedicated to a taxonomy of the Christian World. For all the those that adhere to this religion, it is well known that one of its main beliefs is unity, and yet the Christian world is far from united. In fact, despite beliefs in peace and love, 'Christians' have been involved in more wars in the name of religion, and killed more people than just about any one else on the planet. What is it about those who supposedly adhere to these beliefs that allows such apparent hypocrisy? A close examination of beliefs across the Christian spectrum finds many, sometimes startling, differences. Where those differences came from, what they are, and when they crept in tell an interesting story. That these differences have occurred should come as no great shock since it was predicted from the beginning. "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 2 Thess 2:3-4
Creating a taxonomy of the Christian world may take a long time, but although I have barely started, it has already been an interesting adventure, and taken me into some new areas. Along the way I will constantly make an attempt to find the true source of the various beliefs I will catalog. Comment if you like, but follow along.
Here is how to follow though. As you post to the blog, it places things in reverse chronology order. I however write the opposite way. To ensure you view the chapters in the proper order, use the drop down menu and look for chapter titles. At first there will only be numbers, but eventually I will give them names as well as numbers. If I revise a chapter and add too it, I will post a revision date as well. Check back for added information or photographs.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Book Project Christian Taxonomy
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Chapter 6 Sun Worship Revised 12/1/07 2
Sun Worship
Another early variation or falling away from the original beliefs was the elevation of Sunday as the day of rest. Christians like their Jewish progenitors originally kept the seventh-day as the Sabbath. There is absolutely no record, recorded in scripture, where the day was changed. There is ample evidence of it's importance however. No other issue has so many instances of Divine intervention to demonstrate it's specific and exact nature.
Consider the case the Israelite wanderings in the desert. They had recently been redeemed out of 400 years of slavery, and as slaves, had lost all sight of the Creation Sabbath and it's importance. In the desert, with at least hundreds of thousands of people, food was quickly a critical issue. God sent manna for them to eat and they were miraculously preserved for 40 years. During that time, every day the manna fell, except on the Sabbath day. In addition to this daily miracle, was another separate miracle. If you gathered more than you needed for one day, the manna bred worms and stunk. On "the Preparation" day, (what we would call Friday) however, if you didn't gather twice the normal amount, you weren't going to be eating on the Sabbath (Saturday). On Sabbath, none fell, and the larger than usual Friday gathering was preserved fresh. Any attempts to choose another day of rest would have resulted in hunger at best. (It is interesting to hear some today voice doubts about whether we really know today if Saturday is really the seventh day since the calender was changed. The calender WAS changed, but it did not involve the days of the week being changed. These same detractors, still have NO problem discovering which day to celebrate Easter Sunday on. According to scripture, the day before Easter Sunday was the Sabbath, and the day before that was "The Preparation", celebrated today as "Good Friday".)
In Bible times, those who were caught actually working on the Sabbath were stoned to death by Divine Law. In this way, God meant to teach them that they were to put distinctions between Holy and common. If you count the number of direct miracles involved day in and day out x 40 years x millions of people you begin to get some idea of the importance God places on it.
So why did the change take place anyway? Contrary to popular fables and misconceptions, it did not take place during the time of the apostles. In fact from the time of the apostles until now, there has always been Christians somewhere in the world keeping the 7th day as the sabbath.
At the same time that the early Christian church was spreading rapidly, paganism was organizing for a sneak attack. Roman Emperor Aurelian began a new Sun Cult in 274 A.D.
[p. 55] In 274, Aurelian … created a new cult of the "Invincible Sun." Worshipped in a splendid temple, served by pontiffs who were raised to the level of the ancient pontiffs of Rome, celebrated every fourth year by magnificent games, Sol Invictus was definitely promoted to the highest rank in the divine hierarchy and became the official protector of the Sovereigns and of the Empire… He [Aurelian] placed in his new sanctuary the images of Bel and Helios, which he captured at Palmyra. In establishing this new State cult, Aurelian in reality proclaimed the dethronement of the old Roman idolatry and the accession of Semitic Sun-worship…
[p. 56] This sidereal theology, founded on ancient beliefs of Chaldean astrologers, transformed in the Hellenistic age under the twofold influence of astronomic discoveries and Stoic thought, [was] promoted, after becoming a pantheistic Sun-worship, to the rank of official religion of the Roman Empire.
Source: Franz Cumont, Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans (reprint; New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1960), pp. 55, 56.
Emperor Constantine's pseudo-conversion to Christianity shortly thereafter paved the way for further changes. With his conversion he brought these sun-cult beliefs into the church in a major way. His 'conversion' was commemorated on the coins he had minted. The inscriptions on many of them read SOLI INVICTO COMITI or claiming the Unconquered Sun as a companion to the Emperor. As emperor he had inherited the power of the Sol Invictus cult. The Romans held a festival on December 25 called Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, "the birthday of the unconquered sun." Not only was this holiday gradually brought into the church as Christmas, but Sunday was brought in as well.
Shortly thereafter the first Sunday Law was enacted by Emperor Constantine -
March, 321 A.D.
On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost. (Given the 7th day of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls each of them for the second time [A.D. 321].)
Source: Codex Justinianus, lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; trans. in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3 (5th ed.; New York: Scribner, 1902), p. 380, note 1.
Perhaps the best historian of the change is the Catholic Church herself. Here is a reprint from the pages of the Catholic Mirror from September 1893. It was written following an outcry by Protestant Clergy when the Worlds Fair exhibit was opened on Sunday. Emphasis are mine in bold. The haughty tone however, is entirely theirs. 
" These superlatively good and unctuous Christians, by conning over their Bible carefully, can find their counterpart in a certain class of unco-good people in the days of the Redeemer, who haunted Him night and day, distressed beyond measure, and scandalized beyond forbearance, because He did not keep the Sabbath in as straight-laced manner as themselves.
They hated Him for using common sense in reference to the day, and He found no epithets expressive enough of His supreme contempt for their Pharisaical pride. And it is very probably that the divine mind has not modified its views today anent the blatant outcry of their followers and sympathizers at the close of this nineteenth century. But when we add to all this the fact that whilst the Pharisees of old kept the true Sabbath, our modern Pharisees, counting on the credulity and simplicity of their dupes, have never once in their lives kept the true Sabbath which their divine Master kept to His dying day, and which His apostles kept, after His example, for thirty years afterward, according to the Sacred Record.
This most glaring contradiction, involving a deliberate sacrilegious rejection of a most positive precept, is presented to us today in the action of the Biblical Christian world. The Bible and the Sabbath constitute the watchword of Protestantism; but we have demonstrated that it is the Bible against their Sabbath. We have shown that no greater contradiction ever existed than their theory and practice. We have proved that neither their Biblical ancestors nor themselves have ever kept one Sabbath day in their lives. The Israelites and Seventh-day Adventists are witnesses of their weekly desecration of the day named by God so repeatedly, and whilst they have ignored and condemned their teacher, the Bible, they have adopted a day kept by the Catholic Church. What Protestant can, after perusing these articles, with a clear conscience, continue to disobey the command of God, enjoining Saturday to be kept, which command his teacher, the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, records as the will of God?
The history of the world cannot present a more stupid, self-stultifying specimen of dereliction of principle than this. The teacher demands emphatically in every page that the law of the Sabbath be observed every week, by all recognizing it as "the only infallible teacher," whilst the disciples of that teacher have not once for over three hundred years observed the divine precept! That immense concourse of Biblical Christians, the Methodists, have declared that the Sabbath has never been abrogated, whilst the followers of the Church of England, together with her daughter, the [pg. 9] Episcopal Church of the United States, are committed by the twentieth article of religion, already quoted, to the ordinance that the Church cannot lawfully ordain anything "contrary to God's written word." God's written word enjoins His worship to be observed on Saturday absolutely, repeatedly, and most emphatically, with a most positive threat of death to him who disobeys.All the Biblical sects occupy the same self-stultifying position which no explanation can modify, much less justify.
How truly do the words of the Holy Spirit apply to this deplorable situation! "Iniquitas mentita est sibi" — "Iniquity hath lied to itself." Proposing to follow the Bible only as teacher, yet before the world, the sole teacher is ignominiously thrust aside, and the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church — "the mother of abomination," when it suits their purpose so to designate her — adopted, despite the most terrible threats pronounced by God Himself against those who disobey the command, "Remember to keep holy the Sabbath."
Before closing this series of articles, we beg to call the attention of our readers once more to our caption, introductory of each; viz., 1st—The Christian Sabbath, the genuine offspring of the union of the Holy Spirit with the Catholic Church His spouse. 2nd—The claim of Protestantism to any part therein proved to be groundless, self-contradictory, and suicidal.
The first proposition needs little proof. The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday. We say by virtue of her divine mission, because He who called Himself the "Lord of the Sabbath," endowed her with His own power to teach, "he that heareth you, heareth Me;" commanded all who believe in Him to hear her, under penalty of being placed with "heathen and publican;" and promised to be with her to the end of the world. She holds her charter as teacher from Him — a charter as infallible as perpetual. The Protestant world at its birth found the Christian Sabbath too strongly entrenched to run counter to its existence; it was therefore placed under the necessity of acquiescing in the arrangement, thus implying the Church's right to change the day, for over three hundred years. The Christian Sabbath is therefore to this day, the acknowledged offspring of the Catholic Church as spouse of the Holy Ghost, without a word of remonstrance from the Protestant world.
Let us now, however, take a glance at our second proposition, with the Bible alone as the teacher and guide in faith and morals. This teacher most emphatically forbids any change in the day for paramount reasons. The command calls for a "perpetual covenant." The day commanded to be kept by the teacher has never once been kept, thereby developing an apostasy from an assumedly fixed principle, as self-contradictory, self-stultifying, and consequently as suicidal as it is within the power of language to express. Nor are the limits of demoralization yet reached. Far from it. Their pretense for leaving the bosom of the Catholic Church was for apostasy from the truth as taught in the written word. They adopted the written word as their sole teacher, which they had no sooner done than they abandoned it promptly, as these articles have abundantly proved; and by a perversity as willful as erroneous, they accept the teaching of the Catholic Church in direct opposition to the plain, unvaried, and constant teaching of their sole teacher in the most essential doctrine of their religion, thereby emphasizing the situation in what may be aptly designated "a mockery, a delusion, and a snare."Catholic Mirror September 23, 1893
|
|
|
James Cardinal Gibbons |
* The Supreme Court said in a decision, "this is a Christian nation" (Holy Trinity Church v. U.S.), on February 29th, 1892. The Congressional legislation was H.R. 7520 (the Durborow World's Fair Bill), a bill passed by the 52nd U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Harrison on August 5, 1892, appropriating $2,500,000 to the Chicago World's Fair (Columbian Exposition), on the condition that the fair be closed to the public on Sundays. The bill declared "the first day of the week commonly called Sunday" to be "the Christian Sabbath," "the Sabbath of the nation". (U. S. Statutes, Vol. 27, Part 1, pp. 363, 388.) Despite this, the fair directors eventually bowed to public pressure and opened the fair on Sundays, beginning on May 28th of 1893.
Chapter 5
x)">
The facts are, that the commandments are "holy, Just, and good" and are part of God's eternal character. The breaking of them, was what caused the fall in the first place. Their one word explanation is "Love". Love for God and your neighbor. On these principles hang all the law and the prophets. Far from doing away with them, Christ came to magnify them and place them in their proper perspective. They stand fast forever and not one jot or title will ever pass from them till all things are fulfilled. In fact their magnification is what reveals sin in our lives. Like a mirror to someone with a dirty face, they reveal defects, but they don't provide a remedy. Just as the remedy for a dirty face isn't getting rid of the mirror but rather involves soap and water, so the remedy for sin isn't getting rid of the law.
The remedy for sin is an entire transformation of the sinner himself. It involves power to overcome, it involves complete victory. Part of the Good News is that this victory is NOT man-made. A quick look in the 'mirror' of the law and some honest personal inspection will reveal more and more defects. The Good News is that there is mercy and that Christians are to 'grow in grace'. God isn't finished with me yet. I AM obligated to keep the law, after all, that defines sin. But Christ came to purchase something important and it comes in two parts.
Sinners need two things from God and they deal with time. First our past is a problem. The blood of Christ 'cleanses us from all sin'. If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive them. He died for the sins of the entire world. The angels told the shepherds about 'peace on earth' and 'good will towards men'. The catholic view of an angry God who only relents with the mediatorial work of Mary is a slight on the cross. The cross shows to what extent God went to prove that He loves mankind. He died to prove He wants to forgive us. We have a right to claim that gift of forgiveness.
The second problem or question is our future. The Good News is that is take care of too. From Christ's side, two streams flowed, blood and water. These two symbols are repeated over and over in the Bible. The water is less clearly understood by most Christians. It was the symbol used to indicate cleaning. Christ was baptized by John, Naaman was asked to dip 7 time in the same river, the laver in the temple was filled with water, in many other instances water was used over and over to show this.
The Good News is that God wants to transform us back into perfect people. Yes I said perfect. After all if my character remains that of a sinner, I am not safe to take to a perfect heaven. The sin problem would return. The only safe people to take there are those who wouldn't think of committing a sin. That level of Christian experience was spoken of by Paul who told the eary Christians " Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God...Heb 6:1".That is a scary standard for many Christians who carry bumper stickers around stating 'Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven'. I don't want my money held in trust at a bank run by a merely 'forgiven' swindler do you? Only a complete transformation makes any sinner trustworthy and eligible for heaven.
Some would argue that this level of transformation isn't possible in this life, but that too demonstrates ignorance of the scriptures. In the first chapter of Luke we are told of a Zachariah and Elizabeth who "walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blameless". So if they did it, can you or I? And if they can, then we MUST, but HOW is the problem.
The book of Revelation talks of a group of people at the end who are without spot or wrinkle and overcame 'by the blood of the Lamb'. Christ spoke of curious concept. "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. Matt. 11:12" That is a curious phrase indeed. And notice that the first preacher of the "Good News", John the Baptist, was linked to it. Remember the violent struggle between Jacob and the angel of promise in Genesis 32? He obtained his blessing because he clung violently to the angel.
I believe we have been granted the right on calvary to get violent with God in a certain way. We have the right, by faith, to walk into the courts of heaven and make certain demands of God. That may sound like an offensive concept to some. After all how can man make any demands of God? We find demand to be offensive. But the question is does God find it offensive. He obviously rewarded Jacob for his violent demand.
Websters online dictionary defines the act of demanding as "asking especially with authority". While demanding from God things He has NOT promised is presumption (sorry folks, no demands for winning lottery ticket will be honored) we DO have the right to demand MANY things from God, and the authority for those demands is nothing less than the Blood of Christ.
The Law shows us our defects. Hiding it and wishing it would go away won't fix the defects. Like the psalmist in Ps. 119, it needs to be our meditation all day long and will bring us peace. How and why is the important thing. With it we see our defects and are then guided in the path needed to make demands of God. We CAN demand victory. We are then to walk in it's light and "go and sin no more". If we stumble we have an advocate, Jesus Christ the Righteous, and an opportunity to make further demands of His Spirit. The role of the Holy Spirit was not to comfort us in sin, but to give us divine power to overcome it. It is divine power from start to finish. No one can brag and that is also Good News.
We have a high calling. God wants us to grasp His promises. Most Christians settle for a much weaker, watered down, version of the Gospel which places either the standard lower, the attainment of that standard irrelevant, or provides a man-made solution. God wants far more than that for us, the Good News is that He offers real forgiveness for the past, and real power for the future. If this is the real Gospel, then what about all the other beliefs out there.
The remaining portion of this work, gentle reader is the examination of some of the various beliefs across the Christian spectrum to see how some of them relate to the Gospel.
Differences Foretold
When Christ returned to heaven, through the prophets He predicted a 'falling away'. This change was not overnight. It's success stemmed in part with its gradual nature. The old biology analogy is that if you place a frog in very hot water, he will jump out, but if you place him in cold water and slowly heat it, you can cook him alive. In the first century, Christians faced severe persecution both from Jews and pagans alike. Like the first frog in our analogy, their reaction to severe persecution was to move. In this way the Gospel quickly spread to the entire then known world.
The devil then switched to a much more successful strategy of 'if you can't lick them, join them'. Roman Emperor Constantine, claimed to have seen a vision, and converted to Christianity if only nominally. One of his first acts, which by the way betrayed the genuineness of his conversion, was to order his entire army to become Christians. While John the Baptist had baptized Christ in the river Jordan, pagans who worshiped nature and fertility saw rain and sprinkling as important life giving forces. Perhaps because of this, or merely because of constraints of time, the order was given to perform their baptism by sprinkling. Boughs of trees were dipped in the water and shaken over his troops who ran through the sprinkle. While this in no way symbolized a death and burial to sin, it did accomplish his goal to perform a ritual signifying that they were now 'Christians'.
No scripture ever authorized sprinkling, and this was not the original method. Nothing about the Gospel is homemade. Man from the beginning, even in Eden, began this mess first with direct disobedience followed closely by attempts to accomplish their own righteousness. Fig leaves didn't work then and sprinkling isn't God's way now. History records the tragic death of Uza who touched the ark of the covenant and died. Although he did so out of ignorance, he died because he SHOULD have known. The philistines who touched the ark were not apparently killed. They did experience the limited wrath of God when they placed the ark in their temple only to have their god Dagon, smashed. However they seem to have been spared personally.
We have the opportunity to know a great deal more than those pagans did. How much more should we follow exactly what God has revealed to us in His word and avoid changing His plan in the slightest. Baptism was first began by the greatest preacher of the Gospel ever, John the Baptist. It involved immersion in water and repentance for sins. Christ who never sinned, did however consent to being immersed in the Jordan river as an example to us, and in the Gospel commission, we are told to to the same. Variations on this express command, are neither safe or right.
Chapter 4
-8">
Protestant
Protestant means to protest. Protest what? Part of the problem today is that when protestants left such a structured and rigidly defined faith, anything and everything was subject to change and very nearly did so. Generalities are therefore difficult to make for all protestants but I will try to do so.
Authority of Scripture
The concept of authority was probably the first to go. The search for the final arbiter of truth was quickly solved by turning to the scriptures. While some protestants have weakened their position to state that since man was involved in the process that the Bible is just another good book, most still hold the belief that Almighty God sent and protected His Word to mankind and that the scriptures themselves are the final arbiter of truth. Most protestants today then, place the Scriptures in the position of authority. Of course who interprets them and how, is still an open question and varies widely across the Protestant world.
Less Structure
With the shift in authority from a man to scripture came the predictable result of loss of structure. While most denominations maintain some structure at some level, Protestantism in general is certainly not hierarchical. There is no one hierarchical organization to maintain order within the ranks of Protestantism. This has resulted in an astonishing variety of teachings and beliefs some of which are more rooted in the traditions of the "mother church" and other beliefs are held to come from a fresh understanding of scripture.
There are some divisions of Protestantism, such as Later Day Saints (Mormons), which are very hierarchical, while other divisions of Protestantism which are "congregational" and organized only at the local level.
Tradition
This change in outlook has led in general to a seeming rejection of the faith in tradition. After all, if tradition had value, why the split in the first place? The concept of "Sola Scriptura", or the Bible and the Bible only as the only rule of faith and doctrine is given wide lip service at least in the protestant world. I say lip service since most protestants despite their claims to the contrary cannot give a scriptural basis for all their beliefs. This may come as a shock to many of my protestant friends, but at some level it is largely true regardless of their personal level of study.
I have listened to many very learned protestant pastors of various denominations preaching on the radio and some hardly mention a scripture. With some, their entire discourse is made up of platitudes, repetitious sayings, and various aspects of the "social gospel" involving vague encouragement to love others. Little if anything is said about the "sin problem". A great deal is made by most of having the Spirit, but the Spirit's role in reproof of sin is largely ignored.
In contrast, other pastors at times mention a lot of scripture. Some are connected in logical ways while others less so. However sooner or later with rare exception, the studious listener will detect a phrase or concept which has it's origin in tradition, and not in the scriptures. Some of these concepts are so deeply rooted in the fabric of specific denomination and Protestantism in general that they are accepted without question and form a foundation for a very large house of cards.
Recently I listened to a pastor explaining the book of Revelation on the radio, and his fanciful discourse had so many concepts woven in which were mere assertions and have NO basis in scripture it was incredible. The problems is that many of these concepts have become so widely accepted across the protestant world that he is free to weave them in wherever he wishes and his audience will not even question them. Not only is there no scriptural foundation for them, they actually violate scriptural principles completely. Since his audience is so ignorant of the scriptures, he is free to do this. I sometimes wonder who is more ignorant and misled, the speaker or his hearers. I constantly gain a newer appreciation for the faithfulness of the Bereans of Acts 17:11 who "eagerly examined the scriptures every day to see whether these things were so". I also soberly examine my own beliefs in the light of scripture to ensure I am not led astray as well.
Law and Sin
The question of law and sin is one of so much disagreement and downright double-talk in the Protestant world, that it is a defining characteristic. While it is hard to generalize such a diverse company of "believers", the belief that man is a "sinner" at least appears to be universal. What sin IS gets a little fuzzier. Some would soften it almost out of existence to mean anyone who doesn't love his neighbor. While that is in itself true of sinners, if you stop there, it leaves a lot of explaining. A more rigid definition of sin is provided in scripture.
"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4"
This definition though creates a problem for some denominations.
The "law" in ancient Israel had several meanings. There were bodies of laws covering many areas of life. There was the Decalogue or Ten Commandments written in stone, given on Mt. Sinai. There were dietary/health laws given in several places. There were laws of ceremony, and laws of governance in civil matters. Much of our current civil laws find their basis in these laws.
There is a certain hostile undercurrent in many protestant denominations toward anyone who would suggest that "the law" must be kept today. Many have taught for years that it was the ten commandment law that was done away with and "nailed to the cross". This hostility is odd since the scriptures state plainly that "... the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Rom. 7:12". The justification for the this assertion is a misinterpretation of Col. 2:14 "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;". If this were to mean that the standard of sin was taken away and sinners who are "no longer under law but under grace"(Rom. 6:14), then there is a major problem. There are no more sinners. You cannot have breakers of a law which is no longer in effect can you.
Catholics have solved this issue of whether the law is binding today quite easily. They say 'yes the law (as we define it) is still in effect, but we will issue forgiveness to you so it's O.K.' Generally Protestants reject this but they cannot really have it both ways. If the law is still in effect, its demands still label them a sinner. The solution is where the difference really lays.
Generally, the Protestant view appears to be essentially this. The law is in force labeling you a sinner, and once you are 'saved' do the best you can to keep it for the most part, but 'don't sweat the small stuff since your performance is no longer a problem'.
In fact, they appear to stratify the commandments themselves into greater and lesser ones similar to the Catholic distinctions between "mortal" and "venial". While lying and stealing are still wrong and punishable by even civil law, divorce is widely practiced, questions of Sabbath observance open to private variations, and other commandments such as covetousness almost forgotten.
Once most Protestants have been 'saved' their performance of the commandments is no longer an issue. Like the catholic who has purchased an indulgence, they are now free to sin without any repercussions. This is not 'good news' to anyone around them who may have to suffer the consequences of their behavior.
This appearance of speaking out of both sides stems from the basic difference between being 'saved in sin' and being 'saved from sin'. If you are saved in sin, your performance is irrelevant and the only thing you need be concerned with is whether you have mouthed certain incantations. Like pagans, certain phrases take on magical properties, and merely stating that you 'except Christ as your personal savior' transforms you from a sinner into a saint. While most protestants would object to this blunt characterization, that is essentially their position.
To be saved from sin implies something most Protestants and Catholics alike have never contemplated and is indeed Good News.
Chapter 3
Two Great Divisions
Structure
Among the Christian world, the two great divisions are Catholic and Protestant. In some ways they seem alike and in other ways they are very very different. I am not a Catholic so I hope my Catholic friends will find my description of them accurate. I will do my best.
Perhaps the biggest difference is structure. The Catholic church is VERY structured at every level. The various churches are connected to a diocese which in turn is linked to the "mother church" in an intricate web covering the entire world. There are local priests and nuns who report to superiors of various titles connected to cardinals who report to the Pope. He in turn wears a triple crown and claims the three part title of "King of Heaven, King of Earth, and King of the Underworld". In short it is very much a hierarchy with the Pope claiming the very top.
Protestants on the other hand are anything but structured. They are divided into so many splinters, factions, and bewildering groups that to categorize them can be challenging. I will attempt that eventually, but first lets take another look at Catholics to see how they differ from protestants in general. This will help in our later attempts to analyze protestants.
Infallibility
The Catholic position on authority is linked closely to the issue of structure. They claim that when the Pope speaks "ex-cathedra", literally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman Pontiff or Pope, he is infallible.
"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv
Additionally, when certain councils make pronouncements they too can speak ex-cathedra and the number of those instances actually exceed the number of times the Pope has done so. It is less widely understood, but even the local priest, when speaking during mass, is also I believe speaking ex-cathedra and is infallible. The ramifications of this in light of certain scandals of late, I leave to the reader to ponder.
Popes Hadrian VI, Innocent III, Clement IV, Gregory XI, Paul IV and several others have rejected the notion of infallibility. Can someone have infallibility and not know it? And what about the famous trial of Pope Formosus by Pope Steven. The most astonishing thing about the trial was that the trial was not held in absentia, and that Formosus had been dead for eight months. His rotting corps was dressed in splendid robes, crowned and placed on a chair with his staff in hand. He was then questioned closely by Pope Steven while the smell of his corps filled the hall. Since he was unable to make any defense in this condition, the outcome of the trial was never in doubt. Ultimately they had the fingers he had used to make the apostolic blessing hacked off, then he was stripped of his clothes and jewelry, dragged through the streets of Rome, and finally tossed into the Tiber river.
These items of historical record only lightly highlight the problems of infallibility. History is filled with other cases of Popes apposing each other. Modern Catholics in response are quick to narrow the meaning of ex-cathedra to the point that it almost never happens. It must always involve doctrine. Yet how can a man be so very fallible in every other area of life and infallible when it comes to doctrine? Pope Honorious I was declared a heretic after his death by the sixth council in 680 A.D. and this was later confirmed by Pope Leo. Pope Vigilius condemned certain books and their teachings, later retracted his condemnation, condemned them again, retracted his condemnation again, and ultimately finally condemned them. Perhaps had he lived longer we would have seen another round in this "infallible" circus.
Curiously, the church does not seem to keep record of the number of infallible statements however, and perhaps for good reason. Many beliefs of the past such as a flat earth, the question of the sun orbiting the earth or vice versa, resulted in terrible controversy. The experience of Galileo who was forced to recant some of his discoveries or face ex-communication, torture, and death come to mind.
These types of abuses of the concept of infallibility were made self evident with the dawn of science. In the cold light of truth backed up by experiment with observable, reproducible proofs, science proved conclusively to most reasonable people that some of these beliefs needed to be adjusted in the very least. The question of whether the sun orbited the earth or vice versa seems silly to us today but it was so deeply embedded at the time that the Pope must have felt he was on very safe ground to make "infallible" statements about it then. This is one "infallible" positions the church would have liked to forget but it received far too much notoriety. Eventually the church to maintain any credibility at all was forced recently to issue a statement reversing there position on Galileo and effectively apologizing for the whole affair.
At least one modern pope, John XXIII, while not renouncing infallibility, refused to make any ex-cathedra statements. Protestants in general make no claims of infallibility and therefor neatly avoid the issue completely.
Authority
Closely linked to the concept of infallibility is the belief in authority. Who is the final arbiter of doctrinal disputes? To whom does one turn to for explanation of belief? If the person at the top is infallible, the simple answer is that no matter what the belief is, the man at the top defines it. Catholics are not supposed to read the Bible and derive beliefs from it on their own.
During the middle ages there were times when Bibles were chained to the buildings and only certain priests were allowed to read them at all. The church would argue that at the time, prior to the printing press, Bibles were hand copied and very valuable. Theft prevention alone was the reason for chains. This excuse sounds somewhat hollow in the face of later instances of mass burnings of confiscated scriptures, and the restrictions on who could read them.
With the onset of the printing press, Bibles became so widespread that eventually the church could not stop people from owning one even though they had tried. In the face of widespread availability, the church has steadfastly maintained the position of supreme authority to interpret what the Bible teaches.
The Role of the Priest
Another central belief is the role of the priest. I know of no other Christian denomination where the power of the priest or pastor has so much power,(although Lutherans and Episcopalians come close). In Roman Catholicism the priests possess extraordinary power. He sits in confessional and has the power to forgive sins. Without his authority no marriage is considered valid. (Although Pope Hadrian II 867 A.D. – 872 A.D. taught that civil marriages were legitimate, this was reversed by the "infallible" teaching of Pope Pius VII 1800-1823).
The priest also has the god-like power to create his Creator when during the mass when he says "HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM" With these words spoken by the priest, the Catholic is taught the wafer of bread turns into the true body of Jesus. When he says "HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI" these words, the Catholic is taught that the wine turns into the true blood of Jesus Christ. So Catholics are actually taught that the priest has it in his power to transform bread and wine into God! No where that I know of in Protestantism is this held as true. An anonymous poem from the middle ages skewers this belief. I have included it in Appendix A
The Role of Law
Closely linked to these main beliefs, Hierarchy, Infallibility, Authority, and the absolute power of the priest, is another very important belief, the ability to change God's Law. We have a phrase in English "graven in stone" to indicate an unchangeable position. If you open the Bible to Exodus 20 and read the entire list of commandments as originally written with God's own finger, and then compare it to the list of commandments written in a Catholic Catechism, you will find marked differences. If you lack a Catechism but have an internet connection, simply go the Vatican website:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/css/archive/catechism/command.htm
and read their list of the Ten Commandments. Interestingly, they provide a side by side comparison between what is listed in the Bible and how they have changed it. No attempt is made to minimize the glaring omissions and outright changes.
Careful examination and comparison with Ex.20, will reveal that originally there was a complete prohibition on graven images in Commandment #2. This command was so unambiguously stated that it defies church interpretation in any other way than complete prohibition. In the Catechism it is completely removed. To maintain the number, the tenth commandment forbidding covetousness was split and an artificial distinction made between coveting the neighbors wife, and coveting anything else.
Another marked change in the law is the alteration of the commandment regarding worship and time. The original commandment defined a very specific time when God wanted worship and rest with His people. It also defined this time as "Holy". Who has the right to make anything holy is a very important question.
Although the protestant world in general objects to the wholesale removal of a commandment, as in the case of the second, in general they have not appeared to mind the changes in the 4th. As far as the Catholic church is concerned these changes have been made and she makes no apology for doing so. As a mark of her authority she points to the nearly universal acceptance of the tampering with the 4th to justify the removal of the second and the splitting of the 10th. The prediction of Daniel in Dan.7:25 of a beast power who would "think to change times and laws" is ignored by Catholics and most Protestants alike.
The Role of Mary
Perhaps the most recent evolution in Catholic doctrine over the last 2000 years is the concept of the role of Mary as the "co-redemptrix". The Marian Dogmas as they are known, elevate the station of Mary to "Mediatrix" and finally to "Co-redemptrix".
"Can we add to the title Mediatrix that of co-redemptrix? In the light of the above, the answer is affirmative."
To see the above quote in context at their own website, click on this link on the internet, Papal Theologian Affirms Mary To Be Co-redeemer! , or type it in (http://zenit.org/article-17236?l=english)
The current Pope, Benedict XVI, as recent as August 15th, 2007 in his Angelus message made the following assertion:
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Today, we are celebrating the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is an ancient feast deeply rooted in Sacred Scripture: indeed, it presents the Virgin Mary closely united to her divine Son and ever supportive of him.
Mother and Son appear closely bound in the fight against the infernal enemy until they completely defeat him. This victory is expressed in particular in overcoming sin and death, that is, in triumphing over the enemies which St Paul always presents as connected (cf. Rom 5: 12, 15-21; I Cor 15: 21-26).
Therefore, just as Christ's glorious Resurrection was the definitive sign of this victory, so Mary's glorification in her virginal body is the ultimate confirmation of her total solidarity with the Son, both in the conflict and in victory. ...
The Scriptures make absolutely NO mention about the end of Mary's life, her death or burial, much less her alleged glorious assumption into heaven. Yet we are told that this infallible de fide doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is "deeply rooted in Sacred Scripture: ...", O.K. where? And where is Mary "closely bound [with her Son] in the fight against the infernal enemy until they completely defeat him." How can scripture be silent on such teaching, yet be "infallibly" declared the "ultimate confirmation", asserted to be "deeply rooted in Sacred Scripture"? Most protestants will quickly counter with the scripture :
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12 KJV
Scripture also never elevated Mary to Divinity status. It DID predict a power that would arise who would teach men of "a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. Dan. 11:38"
Tradition
The Catholic church places much emphasis on "Holy Tradition". I have seen banners on Catholic hospitals with bold letters three feet tall, telling the world the importance of "Holy Tradition". Given the previous stance on authority, infallibility, etc. that we have just outlined, and given also the apparent acceptance of at least some of that across the Christian world for thousands of years now, they might appear to be on safe ground. However the true test of time sometimes takes a long time to play out and the Bible is chock full of stories about people certain of their beliefs who later were proven to be tragically wrong. Perhaps this is why Protestants came to reject the safety of the fold so to speak, and set out to find another path.
Chapter 2
What is Christianity?
From the beginning of Christianity, Christian's were commissioned to spread something called the "Gospel" or Good News. One look around at the Christian world today and you will find a bewildering variety of churches calling themselves Christian and proclaiming "Good News". The question is, "What is it?", and "What was so bad about the old news anyway?".
To answer some of these questions we first must make some order of the confusing variety of beliefs in the Christian world. We will look at what led up to the Gospel, what effect paganism had, how the beliefs of paganism and Christianity became mixed, and what the ultimate effect was on the "Good News" itself. In fact, as we examine specific beliefs in later chapters, we will see how pagan beliefs are in fact direct attacks on the original Gospel.
Some chapters will be short and to the point, others lengthy. Some will be mostly text and others will be almost completely pictorial in nature. Some of the most compelling information is based largely on photographic evidence. Seeing is believing and since a picture is worth a thousand words, I will let them do the talking at times. Fair enough? Lets begin.
Common Beliefs
First let's look at beliefs that virtually all Christians at least appear to hold in common. Since Christian churches are all about religion by nature, their belief centers on God and His relation with man. I hope we can agree on that. In time sequence they all appear to believe that God has existed forever, or to put it another way, the Omnipresence of God.
While most Christians believe that there is a God that created all things, recent comments from the head of the largest Christian church, Pope Benedict XVI,(who now appears to endorse evolution), make even the assumption of a Creator God very hard to take for granted. Still while Catholics seem to be weakening on method at the very least, I believe that they still would agree that God at least played some role in bringing man into existence. Some Protestants as well seem to talk out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand they insist on evolution being taught in class rooms, and on the other, casually talk about creation when it suits them.
To ride both sides of the fence, some of the players have at times desperately tried to marry the two ideas by stretching the creation story out over millions of years. Have they ever thought about the size of birthday cake Adam would have needed?
The very process of evolution would involve death and require generations of change. It would cause God to use death as the creative process needed to make man in His image. Evolution destroys the account of an Eden of Perfection, results in a denial of the original deathless state of mankind, and a denial of the story of the first sin, and a denial of it's ultimate consequences. To put it bluntly, attempts to join these two beliefs in the origin of man are not intellectually honest.
The next common belief after the appearance of man on the cosmic stage, was that at least at the beginning, things were perfect. Peace was universal, and the relation between God and man was intact.
Christians also believe that at some point, evil came into existence, personified by someone called the Devil and Satan. This being was in opposition to God and through him, the first couple, Adam and Eve, were tempted and "fell". The fall involved disobedience to commands from God and resulted in a trail of death and destruction to for the entire human race. The "Gospel" is about the remedy to this tragic sequence of events with the ultimate restoration of man to a perfect heaven as the end goal.
Christians also believe that at least for a while, there was a standard of law, written in stone called the Ten Commandments. These were given by God Himself. What became of them, what is required by them, and how man relates to them today gets a little fuzzy as you look across the Christian world. A lot of controversy about them has occurred lately and as we shall see, they play an important part in defining the differences in the Christian world.
Broadly stated, this is the rough points in common for virtually all Christians, but as they say "The devil is in the details". What the basic divisions of the Christian world are gets progressively more complicated. This is made more complicated by the question of reliable arbitrators. By what standard are disagreements to be judged? Who is the judge and what difference does it all make anyway? Some of these questions will be answered along the way, but it might help some, to look at some broad divisions among the various Christian denominations. As the writer, I of course have a bias, but I will try to state each side's case as gently as I can and hope the reader can understand the point.
Chapter 1
Christ Divided
The Game of Life
As a child I remember watching the television program called "To Tell the Truth". The premise of the show was for some interesting character to show up along with two other impostors. A panel of celebrities would then question them and try to determine who the real one was. It was a lot of fun to watch. In the game of life however, the stakes aren't just a mater of entertainment or money. They are far higher.
Blaise Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, a religious philosopher, and an important contributor to game logic. One of his marks of fame was known as Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) and it is about the logical consequences of one's belief in God. It was recorded in the Pensées, a posthumous collection of notes made by Pascal towards his unfinished treatise on Christian apologetics. The following is an explanation from Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia.
The Wager posits that it is a better "bet" to believe that God exists than not to believe, because the expected value of believing (which Pascal assessed as infinite) is always greater than the expected value of not believing. In Pascal's assessment, it is inexcusable not to investigate this issue:
Before entering into the proofs of the Christian religion, I find it necessary to point out the sinfulness of those men who live in indifference to the search for truth in a matter which is so important to them, and which touches them so nearly.1
Again from Wikipedia, here is the wager:
If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....
..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see.
Then Pascal proceeds to set up the logical consequences of the choice that all must make as follows
* You live as though God exists.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.
* You live as though God does not exist.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.
With these possibilities, and the principles of statistics, Pascal attempted to demonstrate that the only prudent course of action is to live as if God exists.
Actually, given the recent discoveries in medicine that point to provable benefits of living the Christian lifestyle as taught by the Bible, the only logical course is that of the Christian, for even if God did not exist, you would still gain something.
Summary
So in the game of life, you must play, you must decide. The stakes are much higher than in "To Tell the Truth". Logic demands that if Christianity is correct or not, it is the obvious choice since after all, your life depends on it. The next question is WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY ANYWAY?
1Pascal Pensees, 195