It’s very easy to say one has the real version of church history, right? As the Reformation month is coming next Sunday, I’m getting ready for the Reformation Month with this article. Roman Catholics have said that they’re the true Church founded in 33 A.D. Roman Catholics can be divided between those who are die-hard fanatics (to the point even reject Pope Francis) and those who follow the Vatican blindly. They say that Protestantism is merely an offshoot of Rome. There have been so-called last messengers like Felix Manalo and Joseph Smith (I heard both were habitual adulterers) claiming that the Church apostatized and they came to restore it. It’s very easy to say that one has the “real history” and accuse the other of revisionism.
The call for Christianity is to go beyond claims. Get the facts straight. It’s very easy for cults to say get the facts straight. But where do Christians get the facts? From the official Vatican website? From Catholic fake defenders whom they should dismiss in favor of having formal debates with real Catholic apologists? From the central commands of anti-Catholic rival cults left by the so-called last messengers such as Manalo and Smith? The cults are bound to fight each other. It’s all about control. Why do you think we frequently hear the Iglesia Ni Cristo badmouth Roman Catholicism and vice-versa? It’s all about control.
The cults would make claims one after the other.
Roman Catholicism in its quest to claim to the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ in 33 A.D. has made many claims. There’s the claim that Peter was the first Pope. There are many myths like Luke as a devotee of Mary. There’s the claim that Mary ascended bodily into Heaven and crowned the Queen of Heaven. There’s a misquoting of Ignatius of Antioch. If you know the meaning of the word catholic, it means universal. Peter never held office in Rome and was the apostle to the Jews. Peter may have only reached Rome after being arrested but never held office. Yet, the scandalous history of Roman Catholicism has proven that something’s wrong with the claim. The history of the development of church practices in Rome such as priestly celibacy will show how it added tradition that never agrees with Scripture. Yet, they try to defend it with very loose interpretations of verses.
The so-called last messengers are also another. The claim that the church apostatized for a certain period is ridiculous. Both Manalo and Smith are recorded to be con artists who claimed visions and were habitual adulterers. Of course, the members are usually kept out of the blue about that! Yet, they have a huge following in their cults such as the Iglesia ni Cristo and the Mormons. I even heard both groups have their own personal death squads. I almost wanted to contact the late Jack Chick (though I no longer recommend Chick Publications for its toxicity) to create a comic on Manalo’s life. That was after I narrowly escaped a beating from three arrogant INC missionaries. They say that this and that doctrine was just invented in which and which century.
I may be no Bible scholar but I started to look at the claims of these cultic groups. There are even some events in secular history and current events that can shoot down their claims. If one started to know it, even a basic reading of the Bible can show that the deist claims can’t fit in that the Trinity only came centuries later. Proofreading even from the Bibles they’ve been using can shoot it down. When their interpretation is challenged, just be ready for some of the followers to start their getting personal and below the belt. I’ve already experienced it and I’m going to expect it to happen.
Some scholarly reasons to study church history
One of the books I bought was the old edition of Why I Believe by the late D. James Kennedy. I may have been a KJV Only but I still bought books by non-KJV Only preachers. I was still reading the toxic world of Chick Publications when I read it. I would say getting your church history lessons from Chick Publications is a bad idea. Chick tends to muddle things presumably for his own convenience such as the Alberto series. Church history would also dictate that the late Alberto R. Rivera Sr. was a sexually immoral pervert who was greedy for filthy lucre. Rivera Sr. even posted as a Baptist pastor once and was later kicked out of several churches due to his ungodly conduct. Rivera Sr. was also never a former Jesuit priest either.
It would also help people see why some people convert from Baptist or Protestant to Catholicism or any pseudo-Christian cult. I wasn’t surprised to read from Dr. John F. MacArthur’s book Hard to Believe that some of his seminary mates even became Buddhists. I even ran into a person who attended a Baptist church and later joined the Mormons or the Ang Dating Daan (Old Path) by the late Eli Soriano. I read some people who got converted to Catholicism after they supposedly studied church history given by Rome. There wasn’t enough root in these people to start with. As 1 John 2:19 says, these people are fake converts.
From Ligonier.org, here are reasons that church history study actually helps:
Protection From Error
Irish philosopher Edmund Burke wisely remarked that “those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” Indeed, without a basic knowledge of church history, individual Christians and churches are prone to repeat the same doctrinal errors and foolish mistakes of former days.
Familiarity with the history and theology of the early ecumenical councils of Nicea (325) and Chalcedon (451), for example, helps to protect individuals and churches from unwittingly believing ancient Trinitarian and christological heresies. Furthermore, careful reflection upon revivalistic movements such as the Second Great Awakening warns us not to abandon biblical ministry for manipulative methods and quick numerical growth. The study of church history, therefore, preserves both orthodoxy (right doctrine) and orthopraxy (right practice).
In addition to safeguarding us from doctrinal error, the study of church history helps protect us from repeating the foolish mistakes of others. One example comes from the life and ministry of John Knox.
The fiery Scot wrote a polemical tract in 1558 titled “The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstruous Regiment of Women.” The work unapologetically condemns the rule of female monarchs. Against the better judgment of John Calvin and others, who were strategically working toward reform in Britain and on the Continent, Knox submitted his “First Blast” for publication. Though aimed chiefly at other lady monarchs, the tract inadvertently fell into the hands of the newly crowned Queen Elizabeth I. Unsurprisingly, the queen was highly displeased. Thereafter, Knox and everyone associated with the Genevan Reformation lost favor with Elizabeth, all because of an unnecessary tract on female sovereigns.
The Scottish Reformer’s unwise decision to publish “First Blast” teaches an important lesson. It instructs ministers and others to be more careful about the content and timing of their writings, especially in a day when self-publishing and instantaneous (and often unedited) posting on social media are so prevalent. Not every deep conviction or strong opinion is worthy of publication. Knowledge of events from the past, therefore, constructively informs our decisions in the present. It protects us from heresy and imprudence.
Reminder Of God’s Faithfulness
To study church history is to study God’s unbending faithfulness. Christians must regularly reflect upon this truth in a world where there is increasing persecution of the church and the future seems uncertain. Like the psalmist, we must “recount all of [God’s] wonderful deeds” to remind ourselves that He will never leave us or forsake us (Ps. 9:1; Heb. 13:5).
Scripture provides a wealth of history to remind us of God’s steadfast faithfulness. From the days of creation to the ministry of Christ to the establishment of the church, the Bible tells the story of the sovereign God who is faithful to His people. But it’s not only in redemptive history that God’s faithfulness is on display; it is also seen in the annals of church history.
Consider how God’s faithfulness is manifest in the preservation and expansion of the early church during the grisly persecutions of Roman Emperor Diocletian. Think of God’s fidelity in the recovery and rise of gospel proclamation during the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation or the astonishing multiplication of believers in China since 1850. And there are thousands of individual stories within the larger ones that remind us that our heavenly Father can and should be trusted no matter what our circumstances.
Motivation To Persevere
Every believer knows that he desperately needs divine grace, motivation, and encouragement to carry on. Of course, Christ and His ordained means of Word, sacrament, and prayer are the essential means and motivation for perseverance (Heb. 12:2). Even so, we can find motivation to persevere in the study of church history.
Considering that “great cloud of witnesses,” the godly lives of believers from the past, can motivate and inspire us to “lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely . . . [and to] run with endurance the race that is set before us” (Heb. 12:1). Are you feeling spiritually weary? Are you ready to give up? Throw yourself into the arms of Christ and also into the pages of church history. Spend time reflecting upon the faithful lives and godly voices of the past, on those whose faith motivates you to keep running. Take up and read a biography of Martin Luther, John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, or Elisabeth Elliott. Explore an overview of the Reformation or a survey of the modern missionary movement. Martyn Lloyd-Jones once asserted that every “Christian should learn from history . . . it is his duty to do so.” He was right. Therefore, dear believer, let us study, learn, and enjoy the history of the church.
This would mean knowing a lot of necessary information. It’s like how the term Protestant was given to the reformers because they protested against Rome. Yet, the Protestant reformers didn’t call themselves Protestants or reformers–they wanted to be biblical. John Calvin would’ve never wanted the term Calvinism either. Calvin just wanted to be biblical. Martin Luther never liked the term Lutheran either. The Reformation was all about what every piece of church history before and after it–getting back to what the Bible says.
Reformed Baptist Christian Blogger 