Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, who is eternally begotten of the Father from all eternity. Amen.
I appreciate you taking the time to write a letter to me, and I share with you a common love for God and His revelation. I too have a passion to contend for that faith which was once and for all given unto the saints. I likewise wish to always avail myself to give a reason for my hope with patience and charity. And to this end I wish to send to you this reply inviting you to consider the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
The question of authority has been a very divisive one in the recent history of Christianity. Within the last 500 years we have seen a plethora of translations and interpretations of Scripture, multiple claims of authority, various understandings of the nature of the Church, and numerous Christian sects claiming to be the real Christians. Unfortunately there are as many theologies as there are those to conceive them. This has especially been true in America affording religious freedom, becoming a breeding ground for new cults and spiritualities, many of which originated during the 19/20th century. All claiming to be God's prophets with the true teaching of Christ. The Mormons were started by Joseph Smith (1805-1844), Religious Science was started by Ernest Holmes (1887-1960), the Unification Church was started by Sun Myung Moon (1920-2012), the Christadelphians was started by John Thomas (1805-1871), and the Jehovah Witnesses originated with the teachings of Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916). Historically, a person will privately interpret Scripture and then construct their own version of Christianity, and then it becomes popularized and eventually the movement solidifies into an institution which still exists today. My point is that these institutions claim to properly understand Scripture and that they are God's authority but all of them contradict one another and are all very recent. I would propose that instead of allowing ourselves to be influenced by these modern religious movements that have recent origins, that instead of creating our own version of Christianity with our personal, private interpretations of Scripture that we would look to the early Church to see exactly what the Church was and where we can find it today.
Consider for a moment the words of St. Vincent of Lerins, writing in the 5th century as he addresses this question of interpretations.
“I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.”
“But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason — because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.”
“Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.”
Let's consider for a moment a modern doctrine and movement which you and I agree is false. Ellen G. White (1827-1915) along with some others were the originators of the Seventh Day Adventists. Like Charles Russell, the movement is highly influenced by the writings and interpretations of their originators. The SDAs believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, that one day in the near future Jesus will have an invisible coming prior to his second coming where he will take all the believers off the earth to heaven where they will remain until the second coming. The interpretation of certain passages of Scripture are proposed as teaching this doctrine, but these interpretations are novel and more recent, meaning that in the history of interpretation there is no historical basis for it. These interpretations can not be historically seen prior to John Darby. According to history, 'Pre-tribulation rapture theology was popularized extensively in the 1830s by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren, and further popularized in the United States in the early 20th century by the wide circulation of the Scofield Reference Bible.' (Wikipedia) The early Church knew nothing of this doctrine, none of their commentaries ever speak of it, and so it should be considered to be incredibly suspect. It is a clear example of 19th century religious creativity which gave birth to a whole new theology originating in the private interpretations of an individual. In one sense, there is no need to debate them on exegetical grounds because there is no historical evidence for their interpretations. The early church fathers, those great lights of antiquity, those most authentic commentators of Holy Scripture, are completely devoid of any doctrine resembling a pre-tribulation rapture. What the early Church thought is very instructive for our purposes because what we have seen so far with all these modern movements based on private interpretations completely devoid of a historical basis is that it has caused great confusion. Many people follow these modern organizations as if they are the most accurate interpreters of Scripture when in reality they have sowed confusion and contradiction among people. And sadly people end of following one of these modern groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses.
The early Church can be understood not only by reading its history contained within the book of Acts, but we also have a lot of writings from the early Christians that inform us about that faith which was preached to them by the mouth of the apostles. The Church is apostolic because the apostles deposited into the Church teachings in the same manner as one would deposit funds into a bank. This is the Apostolic Tradition.
“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life.” - St. Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 4. (Irenaeus was the Bishop of Lyon in the 2nd Century, a disciple of Polycarp, who tutored directly under the Apostle John.)
Ignatius of Antioch, who was the direct disciple of the Apostle John, stated “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there, let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” - Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 8. From the mouth of John's disciple, we know that the faith which was once and for all entrusted unto the saints was deposited into the Catholic Church.
Likewise, he says...
“For all who belong to God and Jesus Christ are with the bishop; all who repent and return to the unity of the Church will also belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not be deceived, my brothers. If anyone follows a schismatic, he will not obtain the inheritance of God’s kingdom; if anyone lives by an alien teaching, he does not assent to the passion of the Lord. Be careful, therefore, to take part only in the one eucharist; for there is only one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup to unite us with his blood, one altar and one bishop with the presbyters and deacons, who are his fellow servants. Then, whatever you do, you will do according to God.” - Ignatius Letter to the Philadelphians
Consider for a moment Ignatius' teaching that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ, that Jesus was resurrected from the dead with that same flesh and blood which was crucified.
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
That Jesus was raised from the dead with the same flesh and blood is reflected in the same letter to the Smyrnaeans: “For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 3)
Not only this but the disciple of John affirms that it was God who became incarnate in this flesh and blood.
Ignatius, in his letter to the Ephesians, “Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fulness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace.” (Letter to Ephesians Chapter 1.)
Again he says: “There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible,— even Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Letter to Ephesians Chapter 7.)
Where did Ignatius, the disciple of John, receive these teachings concerning the incarnation of God. He received it not only by Scripture, the writings of John, but by the very preaching of the apostles. This is how the disciple of John interpreted his writings and sermons. In a letter by Irenaeus this preservation of the Apostolic Tradition is beautifully expressed... “It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.”
“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority.”
“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”
Listen again to Irenaeus, writing in the 2nd century... “This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes.”
What this means is that Christ established an authoritative Church which was endowed with the attributes of authority, and in order to do this effectively, to preserve the truth deposited into the Church, which includes proper interpretation of Scripture, the Church was also endowed with infallibility and indefectibility, otherwise the gates of Hades would prevail. Christ promised that the Church would exist in perpetuity, and so we should expect to be able to discern where it is today.
One day I hope that you will join me in reciting that portion of the Nicene Creed which states so beautifully of our Lord that has so graciously saved us by His blood on the Cross, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself by His own blood. I hope that one day you will be more influenced by those interpretations that have been passed down to us by the early Church, and not be moved by every wind of teaching that flows to us by modern religious movements which originated in the 19/20th century.
“I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”
My challenge to you, is why maintain interpretations proposed to you by the Watchtower and Tract Society when those interpretations are contrary to the early Church, particularly St. Ignatius, the disciple of the apostle John?
If you are interested in learning more about the teachings of the Catholic Church please feel free to write me at my address.
May the Lord bless you, protect you from all evil, and bring you into everlasting life.
