Truth Magazine

By Aude McKee

Introduction

I. Review of past lessons.

A. We have studied the origin of the Lord’s church. It had its beginning on the day of Pentecost, in Jerusalem, in the 33rd year following the birth of Christ. The record of that beginning is found in Acts 2.

B. In the last lesson we observed two things: the growth of the church and the beginning of apostasy.

1. The church, from a humble beginning, grew to be a mighty army of saints.

2. But even during this period of growth warnings were sounded by the Spirit.

3. Lack of respect for divine authority brought departures from God’s pattern.

II. We are now prepared to proceed and observe the rise of the world’s first denomination. As we trace the origin of Catholicism, we will be simply tracing departures from God’s law.

Discussion:

I. To understand how Catholicism came into existence, it is necessary to have a knowledge of the organization of the Lord’s church.

A. Christ the Head (Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:20-23).

1. Christ is the head of the church universal.

2. This is the only organization the church universal has!

B. Elders to oversee. They watch for souls, rule and feed the flock.

1. Acts 11:27-30; 14:23; 20:28; Tit. 1:5; 1 Pet. 5:1-4; Heb. 13:17.

2. There are three Greek words in the New Testament that refer to this office or work:

a. Episkopos translated “bishop” and “overseer.”

(1) Titus 1:7 (see Tit. 1:5) – “bishop.”

(2) Phil. 1:1 – “bishop.”

(3) Acts 20:28 – “overseers.”

b. Poimen translated “pastor” and “shepherd.”

(1) Eph. 4:11 – “pastors.”

(2) 1 Pet. 2:25; 5:1 – “shepherd.”

c. Presbuteros translated “presbyter” and “elder.”

(1) Acts, 14:23; 1 Tim. 5:17 – “elders.”

(2) 1 Tim. 4:14 – “presbytery.”

3. In each local church there was a plurality (more than one) of elders (Acts 14:23; 20:17; Phil. 1:1; Tit. 1: 5).

4. The elders in each local church were equal in authority (see every passage where the elders are mentioned).

5. The elders had authority (rule, oversight, responsibility) only in the local church that appointed them.

a. Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-3.

b. Their authority (rule, oversight, responsibility) did not extend beyond the “flock of God among them.”

C. Deacons to serve.

1. See Phil. 1: 1; Acts 6:1-7; 1 Tim. 3:8-13.

2. Deacons are not overseers – they are special servants.

D. Evangelists, teachers and saints (Eph. 4:11; Phil. 1:1).

II. Early in the church’s history, elders began to extend their authority.

A. Step 1 – distinction made between bishop and elder (see Tit. 1:5,7).

1. Natural in group of three or four or more men, for one to be outstanding in ability and leadership (and occasionally in ambition to usurp authority).

2. Gradually, as men’s respect for Bible authority lessened, the church drifted into the practice of giving more authority to one man among the elders. This man they designated the “president” or the “presiding bishop.”

3. Thus the word bishop came at length to be applied exclusively to one elder and the rest were designated “elders” or “presbyters.”

4. This is an example of a scriptural word’s being used unscripturally.

B. Step 2 – extension of the authority of the bishop to congregations other than the one that appointed him.

1. The city church would establish churches in the neighboring towns and villages. Instead of recognizing the new congregations as independent bodies of Christians, the city church would control them through the bishop.

2. Gradually, as the city Bishops “tended their authority, they became known as Metropolitan Bishops.

C. Step 3 – the combining of churches of a large area under a single government.

1. The area became known as a diocese.

2. One of the Metropolitan Bishops graduated into a Diocesan Bishop.

D. Step 4 – by the close of the 5th century, the octopus of ecclesiasticism had spread until five centers ruled

1. Five Bishops became known as Patriarchs.

2. The centers from which they ruled were Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome.

E. Step 5 – the development of the Pope.

1. In 588, John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, declared himself Universal Bishop. In the year 588, John, Bishop of Constantinople, surnamed the Faster, on account of his extraordinary abstinence and austerity, assembled, by his own authority a council at Constantinople, to inquire into an accusation brought against Peter, Patriarch of Antioch; and upon this occasion assumed the title of ecumenical, or universal bishop” (Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 1, p. 145).

2. Gregory the Great, then Patriarch of Rome, declared such an assumption as apostasy, and the one guilty of it “anti-Christ.” So in 588, the Catholic Church did not yet exist in its presentday governmental form.

“. . Gregory I was provoked and irritated beyond measure by the assumption of his Eastern rival, and strained every nerve to procure a revocation of that title. He characterized it as a foolish, proud, profane, wicked, pestiferous, blasphemous, and diabolical usurpation, and compared him who used it to Lucifer. . . . After the death of John the Faster in 596, Gregory instructed his ambassador at Constantinople to demand from the New Patriarch, Cyriacus, as a condition of inter-communion, the renunciation of the wicked title, and in a letter to Maurice, he went so far as to declare, that ‘Whosoever calls himself universal priest, or desires to be called so, was the forerunner of AntiChrist… (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, p. 220).

3. In 606, Boniface III, who had become Patriarch of Rome, acquired for himself the title of Universal Bishop.

“The disputes about pre-eminence, that had so long subsisted between the bishops of Rome and Constantinople, proceeded, in this century (7th) to such violent lengths, as laid the foundation of that deplorable schism, which afterwards separated the Greek and Latin churches. . . . Boniface II engaged (the emperor) Phocas, that abominable tyrant . . . to take from the bishop of Constantinople the title of ecumenical or universal bishop, and to confer it upon the Roman pontiff . . . thus was the papal supremacy first introduced” (Mosheim, Eccleasistial History, Vol. 1, p. 160).

III. The Catholic Church was born in the vacuum formed by the fall of the Roman Empire.

A. The Roman Empire existed from 27 B.C. to 476 A.D. (some list the fall as 395 A.D.).

1. Rome had ruled the world and then fell because of internal corruption.

2. Rome had ruled through a pyramid form of government.

3. This formed a perfect situation for the creation of the Pope.

B. 2 Thess. 2:1-12.

1. The “man of sin” could well be the Catholic Church.

2. Verse 7 points out that something restrained the “man of sin” from making his appearance, but that the restraining force would be removed. This could very well refer to the old Roman Empire.

IV. The formation of the Catholic Church was not revolutionary, but evolutionary.

A. A flower develops from the seed to the plant to the bud to the blossom, so the Catholic Church developed over a period of 500 years.

1. In fact, the Catholic Church is still developing it is a continually developing religious and political organization.

2. Every few years, new and unscriptural doctrines are adopted and enforced.

B. The seed from which the Catholic Church sprang was a lack of respect for God and his Son, and an improper attitude toward the Word.

1. Departures from truth usualy do not occur in one mighty leap, but they come gradually. Usually the common folk are able to only swallow a small dose of deviation from truth at a time.

2. But step after step after step away from God’s Word will eventually result in complete apostasy. Thus the Catholic Church is an apostate body.

3. 1 Jn. 1:6-7; 2 Jn. 9-11.

Conclusion:

1. At this point in our study, religious confusion seems uncalled for.

2. If you had been living in 610 A.D., and wanted to go to heaven, would you have joined the Catholic Church, or would you have simply obeyed the teaching of the gospel and been a Christian, a member of the church Jesus built?

3. Our plea today is, do nothing, obey nothing, be nothing but that which the New Testament teaches!

4. By obeying from the heart the simple teachings of Christ (Rom. 1:17-18), salvation must come – the right relationship with the Lord and the Lord’s people must necessarily follow!

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 10, pp. 300-301
May 19, 1988

By Wayne Greeson

If you want to get the truth on a subject the best place to go is directly to the source. For example, if you want to find out how your car runs, go to the manufacturer who made it. If you want to know about a building go to the man who built it. Likewise, the best way to get the truth concerning the church is go directly to the source, the author, the builder of the church, Jesus Christ.

The most profound statement ever made concerning the church was made by its builder, Jesus Christ, in Matthew 16:18-19. Within a few words Jesus revealed many great truths about the church which we should learn and understand. Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do men say that I, the Son of man, am?” Some thought John the Baptist. Herod thought this (Mt. 14:2). Some thought Jesus was Elijah, because of the prophecy of Malachi that the spirit of Elijah would return before the Messiah (Mal. 4:5). Others thought he was Jeremiah, who was also thought to come before the Messiah in Jewish legend (2 Esdras 2:18; 2 Macc. 2:4-7). Another Jewish theory concerning the identity of Jesus was that he was one of the prophets. This idea probably was based upon.the promise of Moses that a special prophet would arise (Deut. 18:15).

“But who do you say that I am?”, Jesus asked the disciples. Simon Peter spoke up, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” The term “Christ” referred to the Messiah, the anointed one for whom the Jews hoped and longed. But even more, Simon Peter recognized Jesus divinity by calling him the Son of God.

Jesus responded by indicating that Simon Bar-jona, the son of Jona, was blessed, spiritually favored, for flesh and blood, that is man (Gal. 1:16; Eph. 6:12), had not revealed to Simon Jesus’ divine nature but the heavenly Father. How had the divinity of Jesus been revealed to Simon and the rest of the apostles? Through the miracles and teachings of Jesus (see Mt. 14:22-23; Jn. 17:6-8).

Since the Father had revealed Jesus’ divinity to Simon, son of Jona, Jesus was now going to reveal something to Peter, the disciple of Jesus (“And I also say to you. . . “). Jesus told Peter and the rest of the disciples of his grand purpose and plan to build his church.

“Upon This Rock”: The Foundation

There is a lot of controversy on who or what the “rock” is, referred to by Jesus in this passage. Some popular theories include: (1) Peter; (2) Christ; and (3) Peter’s confession of Christ.

Was Peter the rock upon which Jesus was going to build? The Catholic Church makes this claim and it uses Matthew 16:18 in an attempt to support the position and powers of the pope. Catholics are not alone in their view, there are also many Protestant commentators who support this view, while at the same time rejecting the authority of the pope. The main argument in support of this position is that the name “Peter,” which Jesus designates his disciple, means “rock.”

The Greek and the context of Jesus’ statement do not support the Catholic claim. The name “Peter” is not the same word in Greek as the word “rock” used by Jesus. The Greek word for “rock” is petra, it is feminine and means ‘.’mass of rock” (Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 984). Thayer defines petra as “a rock, ledge, cliff a rock, a large stone” (Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 507). “Peter” comes from the Greek word petros, which is masculine and refers to a “detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved” (Vine, Ibid.)

Greek scholar, Marvin Vincent, pointed out the differences between petra and petros. “In the classical Greek the word (Peter, ‘Petros’) means a piece of rock, as in Homer, of Ajax throwing a stone at Hector (‘Iliad,’ vii., 270), or of Patroclus grasping and hiding in his hand a jagged stone (‘Iliad,’ xvi., 734) . . . The word (rock, ‘petra’) is feminine and means a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock (petros, above). Used of a ledge of rocks or rocky peak. In Homer (‘Odyssey,’ ix., 243), the rock (petra) which Polyphemus places at the door of his cavern, is a mass which two-and-twenty wagons could not remove; and the rock which he hurled at the retreating ships of Ulysses, created by its fall a wave in the sea which drove the ships back toward the land (‘Odyssey’ ix., 484)” (Vincent I Vincent Word Studies of the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 91; original emphasis).

The foundation of the wise man’s house was a petra, a large mass of rock, not a petros, a small stone (Mt. 7:24). Also, petra refers to rocks split at Jesus’ death (Mt. 27:5 1), the tomb of Jesus was in petra (Mt. 27:60), and when God’s wrath is displayed men hide themselves in petra (Rev. 6:15-17). Peter (Petros) is not and cannot be the rock (petra) upon which Jesus promised to build his church.

Some contend Jesus is the rock. While Christ is certainly designated as a rock and foundation elsewhere, the view that Jesus is the rock in the immediate context of this passage also has some difficulties. Vincent reminds us of the context of Jesus’ statement, “Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: ‘On this rock will I build'” (Vincent, Ibid., p. 92).

Probably the most prominent view among members of the church is that the “rock” of Matthew 16:18 is “Peter’s confession.” Too often commentators want to emphasize what they call “Peter’s confession” and overlook the immediate significance that Jesus placed upon Peter’s statement. Christ did not characterize Peter’s statement as a confession but as a revelation! Jesus plainly says what Peter said was not from man, “flesh and blood,” but from the Father. The “rock” to which Jesus refers is the divinely revealed truth, Jesus is the Christ the Son of God. The difference between the confession of a man and the revelation of God is vast and significant. Myriads of churches and kingdoms have built upon the mere confessions of men, but the church Jesus promised to build was going to be established upon the truth of Jesus’ divinity as revealed by the Father.

The identity of “this rock,” as the divinely revealed truth concerning Jesus, can be seen in the immediate context of Jesus’ response to Peter. Robertson points out that, “The emphasis is not on ‘Thou art Peter’ over against ‘Thou art the Christ,’ but on Kago (“And I”): ‘The Father hath revealed to thee one truth, and I also tell you another’ (McNeile) ” (Robertson, Word Pictures In the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 131). The parallel between verses 16, 17 and 18 illustrates the identity of “this rock” to which Jesus refers.

The basis or foundation of the church built by Jesus is the fact that he indeed is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God! Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God with power . . . by the resurrection from the dead . . . (upon this basis) you are also the called of Jesus Christ” (Rom. 1:46). Paul established a congregation at Pisidia by preaching Jesus was the Son of God as demonstrated by his resurrection (Acts 13:29-39). Paul wrote, “If Christ is not risen, then our preaching is vain and your faith is also vain . . . And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; and you are still in your sins!” (1 Cor. 15:14-17)

Jesus is described as a foundation elsewhere in the N.T. in that he has been declared the Christ, the Son of God by the resurrection. “For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). The church has been “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (Eph. 2:2). “This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:11-12).

“I Will Build”: The Builder

Jesus pronounced himself as the builder of his church. This fact had been prophesied, “Behold, the Man whose name is the Branch! From His place he shall branch out, And He shall build the temple of the Lord; Yes, He shall build the temple of the lord. He shall bear the glory, And shall sit and rule on His throne” (Zech. 6:12-13).

Not just any man could build the Lord’s church. Not John Calvin, not Martin Luther, nor Henry VIII, John Wesley, John Smyth, Mary Baker Eddy or any other man or woman. It took the Son of God. “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it” (Psa. 127:1).

“My Church”: – The Building

The “church” refers not to a physical building, but to “those called out” a group of people called together for a purpose. The term “church” in Greek mean “[o]riginally an assembly of citizens, regularly summoned. So in New Testament, Acts 19:39. The Septaugint uses the word for the congregation of Israel, either as summoned for a definite purpose (1 Kings 8:65), or for the community of Israel collectively, regarded as a congregation (Gen. 28:3) . . . The Christian community in the midst of Israel would be designated as (an ekkIesia)” (Vincent, Ibid., p. 93).

“The word church means literally those called out, and often means an assembly or congregation. See Ac. 19:32, Gr.; Ac. 7:38. It is applied to Christians as being called out from the world. It means sometimes the whole body of believers, Ep. 1:22; 1 Co. 10:32. This is its meaning in this place. It means, also, a particular society of believers worshiping in one place, Ac. 8:1; 9:31; 1 C. 1:2” (Barnes, Barnes’ Notes, Matthew, p. 170). Peter describes Christians “as living stones. . . being built up a spiritual house” (1 Pet. 2:5).

“My Church”: The Owner, The Name, and The Number

The church, those called out of the world, do not own themselves. The church is a “purchased possession” (Eph. 1:14). In 1 Peter 2:9, Christians are described (in KJV) as a “peculiar people.” This does not mean that Christians are strange people. In the Greek the idea is “an obtaining, an acquisition,” a possession. The church, Christians, are owned by someone.

Jesus claimed to be the owner of the church when he called it “my church.” He is the owner of the church because he bought it and built it. The purchase price was his own blood. Paul described the church as “the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). Peter reminds Christians, “you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver and gold . . . but with the precious blood of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:18-19).

How should the church built by Jesus be designated? Before Peter and the rest of the apostles, he identified the church as “my church.” He bought it. He built it. He owns it. The church is his bride (Eph. 5:24-29) and his body (Eph. 1:22-23). To identify his church with the name or doctrine of men would be blasphemy. The church should be identified by the name of its builder and owner and called Christ’s church (see, Rom. 16:16).

How many different churches today belong to Christ? Consider what Christ said. He said he would build “my church” not “my churches”! He went further and said “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. ” Christ built just as many churches as can fit into the pronoun “it.” “There is one body” which is his church (Eph. 4:4; 1:22-23). While there may be many “so-called” churches, Christ built only one church (see 1 Cor. 8:5-6).

“Hades Shall Not Prevail Against It”: – The Duration Where the King James version reads “Hell” in Matthew 16:18, a more accurate translation is “Hades.” Hades is the unseen world, the place where the spirits of those who have died are kept and it is often used to signify death. Christ presents two figurative buildings, his church or kingdom and the house or kingdom of Death (Hades). “In the Old Testament the ‘gates of Hades’ (Sheol) never bears any other meaning (Isa. 38: 10; Wisd. 16:3; 111 Macc. 5:51) than death, McNeile claims. See also Psa. 9:13; 107:18; Job 38:17. . . It is not the picture of Hades attacking Christ’s church, but of death’s possible victory over the church. ‘The ekkiesia is built upon the Messiahship of her master, and death, the gates of Hades, will not prevail against her by keeping Him imprisoned. . .’ (McNeile). Christ’s church will prevail and survive because He will burst the gates of Hades and come forth conqueror. He will ever live and be the guarantor of the perpetuity of His people or church” (Robertson, Ibid., Vol. 1, pp. 132-133).

On the day of Pentecost, the church was established upon the evidence that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, as demonstrated by the resurrection. Peter preached that the resurrection demonstrated Jesus had conquered Hades or death (Acts 2:22-36). (See, v. 24 “it was not possible that he should be held by it”; v. 31 “his soul was not left it in Hades.”)

The Christ’s victory over Hades or death assures the members of Christ’s church that they also will be victorious over death. On this ground, Daniel was told that God’s kingdom would never be destroyed (Dan. 2:44). Likewise, the Hebrew writer proclaims we have received a “kingdom which cannot be shaken” (Heb. 12:28). “. . . [T1he Lord affirms that death shall have no power over the members of the Church; they shall be able to rise superior to its attacks, even if for a time they seem to succumb; their triumphant cry shall be, ‘O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?’ (1 Cor. 15:55)” (Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 15, Matthew, p. 136).

“The Keys of the Kingdom”: – The Authority

A key is an instrument used to open a door and one who possesses a key has the power and authority of access. Thus, a key is often used in the Scriptures as a symbol of power and authority. For example, God promised the Messiah, “The key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; and he shall shut, and none shall open” (Isa. 22:22). And, the risen Lord is said to have “the keys of death and of Hades” and “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Rev. 1:18; 3:7).

Therefore, “the keys of the kingdom,” Jesus promises Peter, represent the power and authority to open the door of the kingdom, church. Peter used this power, given to him by the Lord, to open the door of the church through the preaching of the gospel, first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles (Acts 2:14-36; 10). Peter reminded his brethren of this privilege during the apostolic council at Jerusalem. “. . . Peter rose up and said to them: ‘Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe'” (Acts 15:7).

The binding and loosing, Jesus mentions, represents authority in the kingdom. “No other terms were in more constant use in Rabbinic canon-law than those of binding and loosing. They represented the legislative and judicial powers of the Rabbinic office” (Vincent, Ibid., p. 96). “To bind a thing was to forbid it; to loose it, to allow it to be done. Thus they said about gathering wood on the Sabbath day, ‘The school of Shaminei binds it’ – i.e. forbids it; ‘the school of Hillel looses it’ i.e. allows it. When Jesus gave this power to the apostles, he meant that whatsoever they forbade in the church should have divine authority; whatever they permitted, or commanded, should also have divine authority -that is, should be bound or loosed in heaven, or meet the approbation of God” (Barnes, Ibid., p. 171).

While Peter alone was given the power of the “keys,” the privilege of first opening the church to the world, he was not alone in the power of “binding and loosing.” The privilege of authority in the kingdom or church, through binding and loosing, was given to all the apostles (see Mt. 18:18-20).

This power or authority, Jesus delegated to his apostles, was not arbitrary nor based upon their human wisdom. The binding and loosing of the apostles was to be based upon what had already been bound and loosed in heaven and revealed to them. Robertson points out that this is exactly the construction of the Greek, “Note the future perfect indicative (shall have already been bound, shall have already been loosed), a state of completion. All this assumes, of course, that Peter’s use of the keys will be in accord with the teaching and mind of Christ” (Robertson, Ibid., Vol. 1, P. 134). Elsewhere, Jesus promised the apostles they would be guided into all truth, which they would bind and loose, by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:13; Gal. 1:11-12).

Conclusion

The words of Jesus in Matthew 16:17-18 teach so many truths concerning the church he built. All Jesus promised, he accomplished. He built his church and founded it upon his deity as demonstrated by his resurrection. Peter stood up on the day of Pentecost, after Jesus’ resurrection, and opened the door to the kingdom. Peter preached Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God as shown by his resurrection. “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized . . . and the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:41, 47). And, for those who become a part of Christ’s church, even death does not separate them from the love of God (Rom. 8:39). Become a part of Christ’s triumphant church and share in his victory over death.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 10, pp. 307-308, 311
May 19, 1988

By Garreth L. Clair

The objective in this lesson will be to establish as a fact the existence of the church on earth in this latter part of the 20th Century. Since nearly two thousand years have passed since Christ established the church on Pentecost day (Acts 2), it seems only reasonable that some might question the fact of its existence today. Since there have been many changes in all aspects of man’s life, we need to be assured that the church Jesus built is still here on earth and that man may be a part of it. To that we address the following:

1. If the church Christ established has perished from the earth, if it no longer exists, no religious institution has a biblical right to exist.

2. If the church of Christ is extinct from the earth today, all religious institutions in existence today are purely of human origin and everyone who belongs to one of them belongs to the wrong church.

3. But if the church Jesus built does exist on the earth today, everyone ought to find it and do whatever is necessary to become a part (i.e., member) of it.

4. There can be no question about the existence of the church of Christ in the early days of the Apostles (Acts 2:47; 8:4; etc.).

5. There are two extreme views that must be examined when the present subject is considered, they are:

a. “All religious institutions now in existence are the church” (i.e., all denominations are branches in the true vine).

(1) This view is first of all a misapplication of the Scripture in John 15:1-8. In the context of the passage in John the Lord is discussing the relationship between himself and his disciples on an individual basis. To make Christ’s statement here apply to denominations as the branches is a total misapplication of his words.

(2) Such a view of the Lord’s church would cause man to look upon the church as a freak, for Christ would be the head over many bodies (Eph. 1:22; 5:23).

(3) This concept of the church would also dispute Christ’s prayer for unity of all believers (Jn. 17:20-23).

b. “The church you read about in Acts 2 does not exist today in visible form.” Some contend today that there is no unit of organization except “the body universal concept,” that the local assembly of saints is without authority. To these objections we offer the following:

(1) The church is instructed to assemble together (Heb. 10:25). This assembling necessitates a place, the place is therefore the meeting-house of the local church in that place.

(2) The Jerusalem church was a visible church; it was visible enough to be scattered abroad (Acts 8:3,4).

(3) Christians are also instructed to comfort one another and edify one another together under the oversight of qualified elders (1 Thess. 5:11-15).

(4) Friends, the church is just as visible as people for the simple reason that the church is made up of converted people (Acts 2:37-41).

Perhaps one of the most discussed facets of the present day existence of the church established on Pentecost (Acts 2) is, “Can a continuous line be drawn through history back to the establishment of that institution according to Acts 2 of nearly twenty centuries ago?” Please observe the following facts in this connection:

1. Is it really possible for any religious group today to trace its history in an unbroken chain back to the apostles?

a. The Roman Catholic church claims they can trace their history back to the apostle Peter as their first pope. Let us examine their claim in the light of history and the teaching of the Bible:

(1) From a sermon outline prepared by the author in First Century Preaching By Twentieth Century Preachers (Guardian of Truth Bookstore, pp. 53,54) we present the following facts regarding Peter:

(A) Peter was a married man (Mk. 1:30; 1 Cor. 9:5).

(B) Peter refused man’s homage (Acts 10:25,26).

(C) Peter taught others to wear Christ’s name, Christian (Acts 4:12; 1 Pet. 4:16).

(D) Peter did not claim to be infallible (Gal. 2:11).

(E) Peter taught that Christ was head of the church, not himself (Acts 2:29-36).

(F) Peter never wore such names as Holy Father, Pope, etc.; he knew God condemns such (Matt. 23:9).

From these facts it ought to be apparent that Peter was not a pope.

(2) There is no historical evidence of the existence of the Roman Catholic Church until 606 A.D.

b. Some Baptist theologians also attempt to trace the chain of their denomination back to the apostles; among the most prominent are Ben M. Bogard (Baptist Church History Chain Examined by George B. Curtis, Firm Foundation Publishing House 1938, pp. 18,19), and J.M. Carroll in The Trail of Blood published Ry Ross L. Range, 1974. The fact is these men and other Baptists cannot trace their denomination any further back in history than John Smyth, who in 1607 formed the first English Baptist Church (see Handbook of Denominations in the United States, fourth edition by Frank S. Mead, p. 33). In the second place some Baptists claim that John the Baptizer was a Baptist. To suggest that John was in the Baptist Church places the establishment of the Lord’s church in Acts 2 after the establishment of the Baptist Church which would make the Baptist Church a church without Christ as its founder. Surely we can see that the Baptist, as well as the Catholic, church cannot really trace their line unbroken back to the apostles of Christ. Through the years many have attempted to trace their line back to the apostles without success.

c. Is it really necessary to trace the history back in an unbroken line to the apostles to establish that a church today is the Lord’s Church? I think not, for the following reason:

(1) Luke 8:4-16 discusses the parable of the sower. The point of emphasis in the parable is the nature of good seed (i.e., sowing the truth of the gospel in the hearts of mankind) to produce believers in Christ.

Let us notice some facts here about the seed in the parable before we proceed, observe:

(A) The power and characteristics of seed.

1. Seed brings forth after its kind (Gen. 1:11).

2. We may know the seed by its fruit (Matt. 7:20).

3. “Seed” is that which perpetuates all institutions.

(B) What is the seed in the parable of Lk. 8:11? Let us inquire here into this subject in some detail.

1. Do we have the seed in the parable today?

2. Is the seed alive today (cf. Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet. 1:23-25)?

3. What is the soil?

4. Who are the sowers today?

5. Just as the perpetuity of the oak is in the acorn in the physical realm, in the spiritual realm the perpetuity of the church is in the seed (i.e., “The Word of God”).

In the conclusion of this lesson may we suggest that the church revealed in the Bible (i.e., the church of Christ) does exist today and may be found in its local sense in communities all over this great nation and in many foreign countries.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 10, pp. 297-298
May 19, 1988

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind.- How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), pp. 75-77.

Allan Bloom, currently a professor at the University of Chicago, has had a distinguished academic career, teaching also at Yale, the universities of Paris, Tel Aviv, and Toronto. During the 1960’s he was a professor at Cornell, resigning i !1 protest over the capitulation of that school’s administration to campus radicals.

His Closing of the American Mind became an unexpected bestseller, indeed, something of a cultural phenomenon, during 1987. While we do not endorse everything in the book, several passages are well worth reflecting upon.

This is the significance of rock music. I do not suggest that it has any high intellectual sources. But is has risen to its current heights in the education of the young on the ashes of classical music, and in an atmosphere in which there is no intellectual resistance to attempts to tap the rawest passions.

But rock music has one appeal only, a barbaric appeal, to sexual desire – not love, not eros, but sexual desire undeveloped and untutored. It acknowledges the first emanations of children’s emerging sensuality and addresses them seriously, eliciting them and legitimating them, not as little sprouts that must be carefully tended in order to grow into gorgeous flowers, but as the real thing. Rock gives children, on a silver platter, with all the public authority of the entertainment industry, everything their parents always used to tell them they had to wait for until they grew up and would understand later.

Young people know that rock has the beat of sexual intercourse. That is why Ravel’s Bolero is the one piece of classical music that is commonly known and liked by them. In alliance with some real ark and a lot of pseudo-art, an enormous industry cultivates the taste for the orgiastic state of feeling connected with sex, providing a constant flood of fresh material for voracious appetites. Never was there an art form directed so exclusively to children.

Ministering to and according with the arousing and cathartic music, the lyrics celebrate puppy love as well as polymorphous attractions, and fortify them against traditional ridicule and shame. The words implicitly and explicitly describe bodily acts that satisfy sexual desire and treat them as its only natural and routine culmination for children who do not yet have the slightest imagination of love, marriage or family. This has a much more powerful effect than does pornography on youngsters, who have no need to watch others do grossly what they can so easily do themselves. Voyeurism is for old perverts; active sexual relations are for the young. All they need is encouragement.

The inevitable corollary of such sexual interest is rebellion against the parental authority that represses it. Selfishness thus becomes indignation and then transforms itself into morality. The sexual revolution must overthrow all the forces of domination, the enemies of nature and happiness. From love comes hate, masquerading as social reform. A world view is balanced on the sexual fulcrum. What were once unconscious or half-conscious childish resentments become the new Scripture. And then comes the longing for the classless, prejudice-free conflictless, universal society that necessarily results from liberated consciousness – “We are the World,” a pubescent version of Alle Menschen werden Bruder, the fulfillment of which has been inhibited by the political equivalents of Mom and Dad. These are the three great lyrical themes: sex, hate and a smarmy, hypocritical version of brotherly love. Such polluted sources issue in a muddy stream where only monsters can swim. A glance at the videos that project images on the wall of Plato’s cave since MTV took it over suffices to prove this. Hitler’s image recurs frequently enough in exciting contexts to give one pause. Nothing noble, sublime, profound, delicate, tasteful or even decent can find a place in such tableaux. There is room only for the intense, changing, crude and immediate.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 10, p. 299
May 19, 1988