Church of God News

COGwriter

Adventist scholar Samuele Bacchiocchi wrote:

The Roots of Eternal Security Are Found in Gnosticism

Some scholars trace the roots of eternal security back to the Gnostic teachings that found their way into the early church, especially through Augustine. For example, Jeff Paton notes: “Ultimately, the roots of eternal security are in the Gnosticism that preceded Augustine. But it was Augustine that has the unwelcomed honor of leavening the whole lump.”⁵

Gnosticism was a religious movement that flourished during the second and third centuries A. D., and presented a major challenge to Christianity. Most Gnostic sects professed Christianity, but their beliefs differed sharply from those of the majority of the early Christians. The term Gnosticism is derived from the Greek word gnosis (“revealed knowledge”). The Gnostics taught that sparks or seeds of the Divine Being were imprisoned into certain human beings. Reawakened by knowledge, the divine element in humanity can return to its proper home in the transcendent spiritual realm.

The gnostics divided mankind into three categories: the spiritual (pneumatic), the carnal (hylic), and the in-between (psychic). The spiritual Christians were a special or higher class than the ordinary Christians. They were said to be saved regardless of what they did because they had received, as the elect of the good deity, a divine spark into their beings that allowed them to be redeemed. This teaching is strikingly similar to the Calvinistic doctrine that God elected some people to be saved and others to be lost.

The second class, the carnal, were assumed to be beyond salvation, because their lives were governed by material wants and desires. The in-betweens were believed to be capable of salvation if they followed the Gnostic teachings.

It is not difficult to see the striking similarity between Gnostic and Calvinistic teachings. There are some differences, but the essence of their teachings is similar. Both Gnostics and Calvinists agree that Christians are saved not by means of their choice, but on account of their nature. Both taught that people are saved on account of their election. The Gnostic spirituals claimed to be the “elect seed,” because they had a divine spark in their being. Calvinists say that they are elected to salvation by the sovereign will of God. Both agree that their divine election is not affected in a negative way by their actions.

Both Gnostic and Calvinists taught that any sinful action does not affect their eternal salvation. The dualistic Gnostic teaching was illustrated by comparing their spiritual nature to a pure golden ring and their material body to a pile manure. The ring can be placed into a pile of dung, but is not affected by the filthiness of the dung. Its purity remains unchanged.

Both agree that there is nothing that can cause a saved persons to loose their salvation. The Gnostic took this teachings to its ultimate conclusion by pursuing their own lust and passions without restraints. Calvinists, however, believe that Christians who are saved grow in sanctification, though they would not lose their salvation, if they did not.

The similarities outlined above between Gnosticism and the Calvinistic doctrine of “Once saved, always saved,” are too numerous to be ignored. They serve to remind us that the teaching of eternal security is pagan in its origin and stands in open opposition to the teaching of the Bible.

A Biblical Evaluation of the Predestination of the Elect

The notion of God’s arbitrary predestination of some to salvation and other to perdition, is contrary to the overall teaching of the Bible. The message of the Bible is that God is both just and merciful…

Conclusion

The Bible clearly teaches that God wants every human being to be saved. Christ’s atoning sacrifice is for all, not for a selected few. The invitation and call of salvation is extended to all (Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D. ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER No. 197. “ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED”. April 2008).

And on the above he is correct.

And perhaps it should be pointed out that the Apostle Paul made it clear that he did not believe in once saved always saved as he wrote that he could lose his salvation:

But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified (1 Corinthians 9:27).

Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. 13 Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended (Philippians 3:12-13).

It was Gnostic heretics like the second century Marcion that essentially set the stage of Calvinism, Lutheranism, and certain other forms of Protestantism.

John Calvin himself was a heretic as he condoned the killing of Anabaptists (please see Persecutions by Church and State), endorsed infant baptism, taught against the millennium (please see Did The Early Church Teach Millenarianism?), and held to a variety of unbiblical doctrines.

If you are Protestant, this may be a good time to wake up and realize that the God of love really does have a plan to offer salvation to everyone who ever lived. And that it was from heretics that “once saved always saved” originated.

Some articles of possibly related interest may include:

Hope of Salvation: How the Living Church of God differ from most Protestants How the Living Church of God differs from mainstream/traditional Protestants, is perhaps the question I am asked most by those without a Church of God background.
Universal Offer of Salvation: There Are Hundreds of Verses in the Bible Supporting the Doctrine of True Apocatastasis Do you believe what the Bible actually teaches on this? Will all good things be restored? Does God’s plan of salvation take rebellion and spiritual blindness into account?
Marcion: The First Protestant? Considered to have been an organized heretic, he taught against the Old Testament, the law, and the Sabbath. Some have considered him to be the first Protestant reformer. But was he?
The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?

COGwriter

Beliefs: How Was Early Christianity Practiced?

While scholars have a variety of opinions, this page itself will simply mention the following beliefs held by true Christians in the second century, with links to highly documented articles on each subject (which are primarily based on the Bible and early historical writings).

But first, notice what one Roman Catholic writer has written:

Protestants of many traditions are now espousing recent Protestant traditions and modern schisms; yet they all claim the early Church as their own–asserting that they are the rightful heirs to the teachings of our Lord, the apostles, and the Fathers of the apostolic Church. Are they? Do they have a legitimate claim to the theology of the early Church? Was the “early Church essentially Protestant” in her theology and polity, or was she Catholic? (Ray, Stephen K. Upon This Rock. St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church. Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999, p. 15).

Well, what if the early Church was the Church of God, which is neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic? What if that is what the Bible and early writings demonstrate?

Notice the following teachings of early Christianity–all of which are accepted by the true Church of God and only a relatively few of which are practiced/taught/still accepted by Roman Catholics or Protestants (though early leaders considered as “saints” by the Catholics also held them):

Baptism was by immersion and did not include infants.
The complete Bible with the proper Old Testament and New Testament was relied on by the true Church in Asia Minor.
A Binitarian view was held by the apostolic and post-apostolic true Christian leaders.
Birthdays were not celebrated by early Christians.
Born-Again meant being born at the resurrection, not at the time of conversion.
Celibacy for Bishops/Presbyters/Elders was not a requirement.
Christmas was not observed by any professing Christ prior to the third century, or ever by those holding to early teachings.
Deification of Christians was taught by the early leaders of the Church.
Duties of Elders/Pastors were pastoral and theological, not predominantly sacramental–nor did they dress as many now do.
Easter was not observed by the apostolic church.
The Fall Holy Days were observed by true early Christians.
The Father was considered to be God by all early professing Christians.
Holy Spirit was not referred to as God or as a person by any early true Christians.
Hymns were mainly psalms, not praises to Christ.
Idols were taught against, including the use of the cross.
Immortality of the soul or humans was not taught.
Jesus was considered to be God by the true Christians.
The Kingdom of God was preached.
Lent was not observed by the primitive church.
Military Service was not allowed for true early Christians.
Millenarianism (a literal thousand year reign of Christ on Earth, often called the millennium) was taught by the early Christians.
Monasticism was unheard of in the early Christian church.
Passover was kept on the 14th of Nisan by apostolic and second century Christians in Asia Minor.
Pentecost was kept on the same day that the Jews observed it by all professing Christians.
The Resurrection of the dead was taught by all early Christians
The Sabbath was observed on Saturday by the apostolic and post-apostolic Church.
Salvation was believed to be offered to the chosen now by the early Church, with others being called later, though not all that taught that (or other doctrines) practiced “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
God’s Six Thousand Year Plan for humankind to rule itself was believed by early professors of Christ.
Sunday was not observed by the apostolic and true post-apostolic Christians.
The Ten Commandments were observed by the apostolic and true post-apostolic Christians–and in the order that the Living Church of God claims they are in.
Tradition had some impact on the second century Christians, but was never supposed to supercede the Bible.
The Trinity was not a word used to describe the Godhead by the apostolic or second century Christians.
Unclean Meats were eaten by the early allegorists, but not by true Christians.
Leavened Bread was removed from the homes of early Christians when the Jews did the same.
The Virgin Birth was acknowledged by all true ante-Nicene Christians.

What About Today?

Almost none who profess Christianity hold to all of those beliefs.

The largest group (which happens to also be a “little flock”) that agrees with all the positions above, that were part of “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) is the Living Church of God.

And unlike most groups today, it also specifically traces its history from the Apostles through Polycarp, Polycrates, and other leaders in Asia Minor.

Those interested in learning the truth about the early and true Christian church should prayfully study the following articles:

The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?
The Churches of Revelation 2 & 3 Do they matter? Most say they must, but act like they do not. This article contains some history about the Church of God (sometimes referred to as the continuation of Primitive Christianity) over the past 2000 years.
What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History? Although most believe that the Roman Catholic Church history teaches an unbroken line of succession of bishops beginning with Peter, with stories about most of them, Roman Catholic scholars know the truth of this matter. This eye-opening article is a must-read for any who really wants to know what Roman Catholic history actually admits about the early church.
Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome What actually happened to the primitive Church? And did the Bible tell about this in advance?
Apostolic Succession What really happened? Did structure and beliefs change? Are many of the widely-held current understandings of this even possible? Did you know that Catholic scholars really do not believe that several of the claimed “apostolic sees” of the Orthodox have apostolic succession–despite the fact that the current pontiff himself seems to wish to ignore this view? Is there actually a true church that has ties to any of the apostles that is not part of the Catholic or Orthodox churches? Read this article if you truly are interested in the truth on this matter!
Another Look at the Didache, Ignatius, and the Sabbath Did Ignatius write against the Sabbath and for Sunday? What about the Didache? What does the actual Greek reveal?
Ancient “Christian” Sermon This is believed to be the oldest complete surviving post-New Testament sermon. Have you ever read it?
Tradition and Scripture: From the Bible and Church Writings Are traditions on equal par with scripture? Many believe that is what Peter, John, and Paul taught. But did they?

Coin Featuring Emperor Constantine and the Pagan Sun Deity Mars Produced 317 A.D.
(Well After Constantine Professed Christ)

COGwriter

COGaIC has an interview between its David Hulme (DH below) and Paula Fredriksen (PF below) who is a Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture at Boston University, currently featured at its Vision website:

DH You’ve noted that the divide between Judaism and Christianity resulted from politics within the Roman Empire and Constantine’s decision in favor of Roman Christianity. Under Constantine the Sabbath was officially changed to Sunday and Christians were told not to confer with rabbis on the dating of Easter. What would Paul have made of that if he were living in that period?

PF We habitually refer to the conversion of Constantine. I think it’s more appropriate to say that under Constantine we have the conversion of Christianity. Christianity under Constantine becomes a form of imperial Roman culture. One Christian denomination is favored with his patronage. They get tax breaks. They get big, beautiful Bible codices copied at public expense. They can use the imperial post for free. They ask Constantine to kick out the leaders of the other Christian denominations in town. So the people who get the worst treatment after Constantine becomes a patron of this one church are other Christians. More Christians are persecuted after the conversion of Constantine than before, because they’re targeted by one particular branch of the church.

Paul’s first reaction to all of this would be that the type of Christianity Constantine is patronizing is very different from what Paul enunciated. The fact that Constantine’s Christianity understands itself as the only one that’s true to what Paul taught wouldn’t help the historical Paul’s shock in seeing how different Constantine’s Christianity was from his own. For one thing, when Constantine’s official biographer, Eusebius, writes about the emperor, he sees the foundation of the Christian Roman Empire as “Isaiah’s peace”—the Messianic peace promised in what we call the Old Testament. When Paul’s thinking about the kingdom of God, he’s certainly not thinking of the Roman emperor as His agent.

The truth is that the apostles kept Passover on the 14 and NOT Sunday (it was not called “Easter” back then and I really wish that David Hulme would not have used that inappropriate term). The true Christians had so many practices that differed from those accepted/enforced by Emperor Constantine that Paul and the others would not have considered Emperor Constantine and his supporters as Christian.

The fact is that Emperor Constantine WAS NOT a true Christian. True Christians do not kill. True Christians are not persecutors. True Christians do not continue to honor pagan deities.

People may be surprised to realize that the predominant idea of the Godhead accepted by over a billion people was because of the pagan Emperor Constantine. Protestant scholar H. Brown noted:

Although Constantine is usually remembered for the steps he took toward making Christianity the established religion of the Roman Empire, it would not be wrong to consider him the one who inaugurated the centuries of trinitarian orthodoxy. It was he who proposed and perhaps even imposed the expression homoousis at the Council of Nicea in 325, and it was he who provided government aid to the orthodox and exerted government pressure against nonconformists (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 332-333).

But sadly, almost all the world’s so-called Christians accept non-biblical doctrines endorsed and/or proposed by Emperor Constantine.

But the true Christians never accepted his non-biblical practices or beliefs.

Do you want to obey God or men?

Articles of related interest may include:

The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?
Binitarian View: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning Is binitarianism the correct position? What about unitarianism or trinitarianism?
Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity? Most act like this is so, but is it?
Tradition and Scripture: From the Bible and Church Writings Are traditions on equal par with scripture? Many believe that is what Peter, John, and Paul taught. But did they?

COGwriter

Most people who claim to practice Christianity no almost nothing about what happened to the true Church in the second and third centuries.  They also do not seem to realize where the bulk of the early Christians were.

Where Were the Early Christians?

Although there were early Christians in many places, more seemed to be in Jerusalem, Antioch, Asia Minor, Alexandria, Corinth, Rome, Armenia, and with some even into the Celtic areas, India, Africa, and possibly China, the main early location seemed to be Asia Minor. An article of interest may be Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome.

True Christianity was apparently practiced in Jerusalem up until around 135 A.D., its second A.D. fall (which is when it ceased having Jewish bishops and changed practices to avoid imperial persecution–more details are in the article The Ephesus Church Era). By the time it first fell in 70 A.D., apparently many Christians fled to Pella, then some returned later to Jerusalem, while others went to Asia Minor and were later called Nazarenes (please see the article on The Smyrna Church Era). There is an Orthodox Church in Jerusalem which claims it is an original faithful Church, though it has beliefs different from those documented here.

Antioch was a major city essentially north of Jerusalem. The Bible records that some of the apostles met there. It was in Syria, but the current border puts it in the nation of Turkey. True Christianity was, to some degree, practiced in Antioch apparently throughout the first and second centuries, and perhaps somewhat later than that. The Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church both claim they are the original faithful Church from Antioch, though both have teachings different from those documented here.

According to the New Testament, true Christianity was practiced throughout many areas of Asia Minor in the first century (this area is now in the country of Turkey). Most (between 15-17) of the 27 books of New Testament were written to or from church leaders in Asia Minor. (Even Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox leaders recognized that Asia Minor had early “apostolic succession“.) What scripture clearly shows, is that although there were Christians in various areas, the focus for the New Testament writers were the churches in Asia Minor. And interestingly, the last book of the Bible is specifically addressed to the churches of Asia Minor (Revelation 1:4,11). The last of the original apostles to die, John, died in Asia Minor and his disciple Polycarp of Smyrna was a major leader there.

According to Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Church of God, and other sources, apostolic Christianity was practiced in Asia Minor in the second century–and those there that were true Christians were sometimes referred to as Smyrnaeans. Asia Minor is north and north-west of Antioch and Jerusalem, and was in the country now called Turkey. There are at least two churches that claim descent from Asia Minor: The Orthodox Church of Constantinople (which does not consider itself to be Protestant as it precedes the Protestant Reformation; and it remains in Constantinople, now called Istanbul) and the Living Church of God (which also does not consider itself Protestant as it precedes the Protestant Reformation; it is now headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina). The Living Church of God considers Polycrates (the late 2nd century Christian who refused to accept the authority of Roman Bishops) to have been an important and faithful leader, but the Orthodox Church is more guarded about that. Also, although the Living Church of God teaches that Polycarp is a successor to the apostles that it traces its history through, the Orthodox Church of Constantinople does not include him in their successor list, nor do any of the other Eastern “Orthodox” churches, even though they acknowledge that Polycarp was a successor to the apostles.

Alexandria is in Egypt, north Africa. It is unknown how long any true Christians were there. Certain ones have made claims that conflict with the biblical record as some claim that the Gospel writer Mark led the Church from there for 20 years (while the Bible shows Mark in different parts of the world during that time). Many non-apostolic practices, such allegorizing scripture, were promoted from this area, from even the first century. The largest Alexandrian church split in the year 451 into the Coptic Church and the Orthodox Church of Alexandria. Both of those groups have many beliefs different from those documented here.

There were (and still are) true Christians in various parts of Africa and elsewhere around the world (for current groups, please see the Living Church of God Congregations page).

According to the New Testament, there was a troubled, but faithful church in Corinth in the first century. It eventually seemed to accept Roman influence.

According to the New Testament, there was a faithful church in Rome in the first century (one New Testament book was addressed to it and several were written from there), but it does not list any who later became known as “Roman bishops” as holding any office of importance there (please see the article What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About the Early Church?). There were also faithful Christians in Rome in the second century, though many heresies affected that area according to Roman Catholic, Living Church of God, and other sources. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it is still the faithful Church, the one that has supremacy over all Christendom, and that it has Apostolic Succession, but it has many beliefs that differ from those documented here (please see Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Living Church of God?). It is of interest to note that even many Roman Catholic scholars have long held that the Churches in Asia Minor in the second century held to the original teachings of the apostles.

Most Protestants come from groups that were affiliated with Martin Luther’s teachings and/or his departure from the Roman Church. And some groups, such as the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, claim that the true church essentially had to begin again as essentially the Protestant reformation did not go anywhere near far enough.

According to various legends and historical writings, there were true Sabbath-keeping Christians in the Celtic areas of the British and Irish islands from perhaps the late first century until sometime after the Council of Nicea (s0me information is included in the article on The Pergamos Church Era). There is a third century report that the Apostles Thomas and Bartholomew got the gospel to India in the first century (and that perhaps Thomas went to China or Malaysia ); and there are later reports that the church in India remained opposed to the Roman Catholic Church for centuries.

Hippolytus’ third century report on where he believed the original 12 apostles, plus Paul, went to is included in the article The Ephesus Church Era.

The above information, and a whole lot more, is at The History of Early Christianity page.  That page also lists many of the beliefs of the early Christians–beliefs that most who now profess Christ do not realize or understand.

Pope Benedictus XVI

Astoundingly, Zenit.org (the Vatican’s main internet news site) reported the following:

Pope Says Dialogue Has a Purpose: Finding Truth

Greets Jews for Feast of Passover

Truth?

Let’s look a little bit into historical writings to learn the truth about Passover and Easter.

Why?

Because the truth is that what the Pope called Easter was really a mangled up and changed version of Passover!

According to the 4th century Catholic historian Epiphanius, the Catholic Church used to keep Passover on the 14th of Nisan (which would have been last night):

Audians…they choose to celebrate the Passover with the Jews–that is they contentiously celebrate the Passover at the same time as the Jews are holding their Festival of Unleavened Bread. And indeed that this used to be the church’s custom (Epiphanius. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80), De Fide). Section VI, Verses 8,11; 9,2. Translated by Frank Williams. EJ Brill, New York, 1994, pp. 410-411).

Furthermore, the writings of the Roman Church actually show that while it changed the calculation of it from what the Bible taught, that its “Easter” is based upon the date of the 14th of Nisan.

Strangely Epiphanius wrote this about the practices of the Greco-Roman church (which we now call Roman and Orthodox Catholics, but he calls “God’s holy church”):

But God’s holy church does not miss the truth in any way in her fixing the date of this mystery. She uses not only the fourteenth day. but also the seven days which recur order of the seven days of the week…And she uses not only the fourteenth day of the lunar month, but the course of the sun as well, to keep us from observing two Passovers in one year and not even one in another. We observe the fourteenth day, then, but we wait until after the equinox and bring the end of our full observance to the sacred Lord’s day (Epiphanius. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80), De Fide). Section IV, Verses 3,1; 3,2; 3,3-4. Translated by Frank Williams. EJ Brill, New York, 1994, pp. 25).

Well, the Catholics most certainly do not observe Passover on the evening of the 14th unless that happens to fall when some observe an evening mass–the equinox argument is not scriptural. And since the “Lord’s Supper” is observed frequently, most practicing Catholics and Protestants do observe it more than once per year.

Notice that around the time of Epiphanius, a later Roman Emperor after he became a baptized Catholic “Christian” decreed the death penalty against those who kept Passover on the biblically proper date:

Edicts of Theodosius against the heretics, A.D. 380-394…Theodosius…decreed that…by the death of the offender; and the same capital punishment was inflicted on the Audians, or Quartodecimans, who should dare to perpetrate the atrocious crime of celebrating on an improper day the festival (Gibbon E. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume III, Chapter XXVII. ca. 1776-1788).

Is killing those that followed the example of Jesus and John to observe the Passover on the 14th instead of Sunday a sign of a true Christian leader or a sign of a supporter of antichrist?

The Catholic and Orthodox saint and “doctor of the church” John Chrysostom preached the following in 387 A.D.:

In speaking about this feast of the Passover, the Law says to them something such as this: “You will not be able to keep the Passover in any of the cities which the Lord your God gives to you.” The Law bids them keep the feast on the fourteenth day of the first month and in the city of Jerusalem. The Law also narrowed down the time and place for the observance of Pentecost, when it commanded them to celebrate the feast after seven weeks, and again, when it stated: “In the place which the Lord your God chooses.” So also the Law fixed the feast of Tabernacles. (4) Now let us see which of the two, time or place, is more necessary, even though neither the one nor the other has the power to save. Must we scorn the place but observe the time? Or should we scorn the time and keep the place? What I mean is something such as this. The Law commanded that the Passover be held in the first month and in Jerusalem, at a prescribed time and in a prescribed place…But the Passover comes to an end on the twenty-first of that month. If they began the feast on the fourteenth day of the first month and then continued it for seven days, they then come to the twenty-first …the Law said they must not observe those rituals outside Jerusalem (John Chrysostom. Homily IV Against the Jews IV:3-4,V:4,5. Catholic Christians of Antioch. Turning to Sabbath and The New Moon Day and Other Holy Days. 387 A.D.).

Although he is correct that the Bible specifies the dates of the Holy Days (thus his church should never have changed it, as they did in the second century because of cowardice and hatred), John Chrysostom is incorrect that Jerusalem is the only place.

That is never taught in the law.

To the contrary, the Jews were not even in Jerusalem when God listed the holy days in the books of Exodus and Leviticus (Jerusalem was not taken by the children of Israel until after the death of Joshua, see Judges 1:1-8).

It is also clear from the testimonies of Polycarp, Melito, Apollinaris, and Polycrates, that the New Testament second century Christians observed Passover outside of Jerusalem, as they ALL lived in Asia Minor and none lived in Jerusalem.

The fifth century historian Socrates Scholasticus noted:

In Asia Minor most people kept the fourteenth day of the moon…Moreover the Quartodecimans affirm that the observance of the fourteenth day was delivered to them by the apostle John (Socrates Scholasticus. Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter XXII. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 2. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1890. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).

Amazingly, the Roman and Orthodox Catholic saint John Chrysostom preached the following in 387 A.D.:

The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us … There are many in our ranks who say they think as we do. Yet some of these are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts…If the Jewish ceremonies are venerable and great, our are lies…Does God hate their festivals and do you share in them? He did not say this or that festival, but all of them together. (John Chrysostom. Homily I Against the Jews I:5;VI:5;VII:2. Preached at Antioch, Syria in the Fall of 387 AD. Medieval Sourcebook: Saint John Chrysostom (c.347-407) : Eight Homilies Against the Jews. Fordham University. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html 12/10/05).

What a strange admission! The truth is that Easter and Pentecost, which the Catholics claim to keep, are based upon the so-called “Jewish feasts” (they should instead be called God’s Holy Days).

Also notice that Pope Benedict yesterday claimed that the Jewish were of value. Furthermore, notice what the Pope stated about the “Jewish feasts” last Fall:

“These festivities,” the Holy Father wrote, “can be occasions for many blessings from the Eternal and a source of immense joy, so that the will to promote the peace that the world so greatly needs will grow within each one of us. May God in his goodness protect your community and grant that the friendship between us deepen, in this city of Rome and everywhere.” (see Pope Praises God’s Holy Days?)

Since the Pontiff seems to feel that the “Jewish feasts” are venerable, and one of a relatively few “doctors of the Roman Church” said that if they are venerable, then the Catholic holidays are lies, this thus suggests that the changes that the Catholics imposed upon them ARE LIES!

Of course, so does the Bible and the record of history.

The truth is that because of cowardice and tradition (please see Passover and the Early Church), the Roman Church adopted Easter instead of the Biblical Passover.

If the Pontiff was interested in the truth, he would advocate the observance of the seven days of unleavened bread which begin tonight at sunset.

Does anyone really think that the Pope is truly interested in dialoging on this subject so that he can tell the world the truth?

If so, I would be interested in publicly discussing this with him.

Those interested in learning more of the truth on these matters should consider studying their Bibles and reading the following:

Passover and the Early Church Did the early Christians observe Passover? What did Jesus and Paul teach? Why did Jesus die for our sins?
Melito’s Homily on the Passover This is one of the earliest Christian writings about the Passover. This also includes what Apollinaris wrote on the Passover as well.
Should Christians Keep the Days of Unleavened Bread? Do they have any use or meaning now? This article supplies some biblical answers.
Is There “An Annual Worship Calendar” In the Bible? This paper provides a biblical and historical critique of several articles, including one by WCG which states that this should be a local decision. What do the Holy Days mean? Also you can click here for the calendar of Holy Days.
What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History? Although most believe that the Roman Catholic Church history teaches an unbroken line of succession of bishops beginning with Peter, with stories about most of them, Roman Catholic scholars know the truth of this matter. This eye-opening article is a must-read for any who really wants to know what Roman Catholic history actually admits about the early church.
Some Similarities and Differences Between the Orthodox Church and the Living Church of God Both groups have some amazing similarities and some major differences. Do you know what they are?
Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome What actually happened to the primitive Church? And did the Bible tell about this in advance?
The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?

A Shmura Matzo (Unleavened Bread is Used for Passover)

COGwriter

While most who profess Christ observed “Easter” last month, those who follow the practices of the Bible, Jesus, His disciples, and the post-apostolic church, will be observing Passover tonight after sunset.

Easter Sunday was implemented because of fear and antisemitism combined with a Greco-Roman confederation who  did not believe that they had to follow the practices of the Apostle John and  the early Christian leaders in Asia Minor.

Notice what Polycrates wrote to Roman Bishop Victor when Victor tried to enforce a Sunday “Easter” instead of the biblical Passover:

We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘ We ought to obey God rather than man‘ (Eusebius. Church History, Book V, Chapter 24. Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series Two, Volume 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1890. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Notice that Polycrates said that he and the other early church leaders (like the Apostles Philip and John, and their successors like Polycarp, Thraseas, Sagaris, Papirius, Melito) would not deviate from the Bible, and that they knew the Bible taught them to keep the Passover on the correct date, and not on a Sunday. Also notice that they always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. Polycrates also reminded the Roman bishop that true followers of Christ “obey God rather than men”.

Hence it is clear that throughout the second century, the churches in Asia Minor continued to observe the Passover on the 14th of Nisan (and for doing so, they were labeled as Quartodecimans by the Romans), unlike the Romans, and they refused to accept the authority of any Roman bishop over scripture.

Notice that Polycrates specifically claimed that he followed what John did. Now notice that John calls those who do not follow what he taught as antichrists:

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us (1 John 2:18-19).

Thus, this subject of Passover is important (see also the article Doctrines of Antichrist).

Anyway, those who still obey God rather than man will be observing Passover this evening.  Those who prefer the traditions of men will ignore what I have written.

And those who want to obey God will search “the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).

Some articles that may be of assistance may include:

Passover and the Early Church Did the early Christians observe Passover? What did Jesus and Paul teach? Why did Jesus die for our sins?
Melito’s Homily on the Passover This is one of the earliest Christian writings about the Passover. This also includes what Apollinaris wrote on the Passover as well.
Should Christians Keep the Days of Unleavened Bread? Do they have any use or meaning now? This article supplies some biblical answers.
Is There “An Annual Worship Calendar” In the Bible? This paper provides a biblical and historical critique of several articles, including one by WCG which states that this should be a local decision. What do the Holy Days mean? Also you can click here for the calendar of Holy Days.
What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History? Although most believe that the Roman Catholic Church history teaches an unbroken line of succession of bishops beginning with Peter, with stories about most of them, Roman Catholic scholars know the truth of this matter. This eye-opening article is a must-read for any who really wants to know what Roman Catholic history actually admits about the early church.
Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome What actually happened to the primitive Church? And did the Bible tell about this in advance?
The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?

Huldrych Zwingli in an oil portrait from 1531 by Hans Asper; Kunstmuseum Winterthur.

COGwriter

In his latest newsletter, Seventh-day Adventist scholar, Samuele Bacchiocchi wrote:

The Tragedy of the Reformation

Disagreements over the meaning and mode of baptism can be traced back to the Reformation. At that time Christians attacked each other verbally and physically with a ferocity totally at variance with Christ’s command to “love one another” (John 15:12, 17). One of the tragedies of the Reformation is that its leading Reformers, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, killed fellow Christians for the crime of baptizing or rebaptizing adult believers rather than infants. Their criminal acts raise serious questions about their understanding and experience of the transforming power of divine grace.

One of the most revealing examples of the Reformers’ intolerance is provided by the story of the tragic conflict which erupted in the sixteenth century between them and the promoters of adult baptism known as Anabaptists, which means “Re-baptizers.” The Reformers were determined to preserve the Catholic practice of baptizing infants, though they gave a different meaning to the ordinance. By contrast, the Anabaptists rejected infant baptism, known as paedobaptism, from the Greek word pais, meaning “child.”

The sixteenth century Anabaptists represented a large number of radical movements who condemned the Reformation as half-hearted and incomplete. They wanted to complete the reformation by returning to the teachings and practices of the Apostolic Church. They all rejected paedobaptism (infant baptism), and baptized or rebaptized only those who came to a decisive understanding of Bible truths and were prepared to make a personal commitment to Christ.

The influence of the Anabaptist Reformers survives today and can be seen in denominations…which were once regarded as the lunatic fringe of Christendom. Now, however, some historians recognize that certain modern religious movements represent genuine Christian strands that rightfully challenge mainline denominations to reexamine their traditional teachings. For example, G. H. Williams, the British scholar who has painstakingly examined the writings of several modern religious movements, concludes: “Christians of many denominations are finding themselves . . . closer to the despised sectaries of the Reformation Era [such as Anabaptists] than to the classical defenders of a reformed corpus christianum [Reformation teachings].”

An Example of the Reformers’ Intolerance

An example of the Reformers’ intolerance toward Anabaptists is the trial and execution of Felix Manz, a Swiss leader of the movement. At his trial in January 1527, Felix Manz freely confessed to being a teacher of adult baptism, forbidden in Switzerland: “We bring together those who are willing to accept Christ, obey the Word, and follow in His footsteps. We unite them by baptism, and leave the rest to their present conviction.”

The Clerk of the Courts wrote this explanatory comment in the records: “They do not allow Infant Baptism. In this way they will put an end to secular authority.” This revealing comment shows the concern of the local government to preserve the practice of infant baptism in order to ensure the commitment of the people to secular authorities that controlled the state church. Being baptized as an infant into the state church meant being loyal and committed to the state for the rest of one’s life.

Even more extraordinary is the outburst of Manz’s accuser, Ulrich Zwingli, one of the leading Swiss Reformers. Speaking at the trial of Anabaptist Manz, Zwingli shouted: “Let him who talks about going under [the water by immersion] go under.” What seemed to be poetic justice was carried out literally by the local authorities who condemned Felix Manz to death by drowning.

“Led into the boat, he was forced to sit up and his arms were passed around his bent knees and bound at the wrists. Next a stick was pushed between the knees and elbows to secure him in this position. The boat was rowed to the center of the [Limmat] river, and the helpless prisoner was thrown overboard, to choke in the dark, deep waters.”

One wonders, How could Protestant spiritual leaders kill fellow Christians for the crime of obeying their understanding of biblical teachings regarding baptism or other doctrines? How could Calvin influence the Geneva’s Council on October 24, 1553 to sentence to death by burning Michael Servetus for denying the Trinity and infant baptism? Regarding infant baptism, Servetus said: “It is an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity.” Servetus was well-known not only for his theological treatises, but also for his scientific discoveries. He was the first European to describe the function of pulmonary circulation of the blood–a discovery that was largely rejected at that time.

One wonders, how could such outrageous criminal acts happen just few years after the beginning of the Reformation in Europe? An answer is to be found in the prevailing misconception that fighting and suppressing “heretics” was more important than loving them. As the church of Ephesus in Revelation lost its first love in the process of fighting those “who call themselves apostles but are not” (Rev 2:2, 4), so Christians with a passion to fight perceived heretical teachings, often became heartless and brutal in the suppression of alleged heretics (Bacchiocchi S. ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER No. 198 . “INFANT BAPTISM: Part 1, April 2008).

And the truth is that it was not only the Swiss “Reformers”, but Protestants like Martin Luther (please see Martin Luther King, Jr. and Martin Luther) who killed and persecuted people who held Bible-based beliefs that these “Protestant Reformers” never accepted.

I would, however, go a couple of steps further than Dr. Bacchiocchi, and state that these Swiss and other Protestant “Reformers”, simply were not true Christians.

True Christians do not kill (Military Service and the Churches of God: Do Real Christians Participate in Carnal Warfare?).  Nor do they endorse infant baptism (Baptism and the Early Church).

Earlier in the same issue of his newsletter, Dr. Bacchiocchi made the following statements:

The massive scholarly assault on the traditional dualistic view of human nature, will eventually filter through the rank and file of Christian denominations. When this happens, it will cause considerable intellectual and personal crisis in the lives of Christians accustomed to believing that at death their souls break loose from their bodies and continue to exist either in the beatitude of paradise or in the torment of hell. Many Christians will be sorely disappointed to discover that their belief in life after death, has no biblical basis whatsoever. The Bible clearly teaches that the dead in Christ rest in the grave until resurrection morning…

There is no question that Biblical scholarship is bound to cause a great deal of existential anxiety to millions of Christians who will be surprised to discover that some of their popular and traditional beliefs lack biblical support.

The purpose of this study is not to intensify such anxiety, but to encourage all Christians committed to the normative authority of the Scripture, to re-examine their traditional beliefs and reject those which are proven to be unbiblical. The Christian hope for a personal and cosmic redemption must be grounded on the unmistakable teachings of God’s Word, not on ecclesiastical traditions.

Now, while I do not always agree with all of Dr. Bacchiocchi’s conclusions or positions on doctrine (he, for example, follows the teachings of Ellen White, who we in the Living Church of God flatly reject as a prophetess), Dr. Bacchiocchi is correct that if people who profess Christ really will look into the truth about early Christianity, they would realize that many doctrines and practices that pass for “Christian” simply were not practiced by Jesus, His disciples, or the true early church.

However, those who REALLY will believe the Bible and are willing to change based upon what it says (as opposed to traditions of men), CAN be called by God to become TRUE CHRISTIANS!

Several articles of related interest may include:

Baptism and the Early Church Was it by immersion? Did it include infants?
Military Service and the Churches of God: Do Real Christians Participate in Carnal Warfare? Here are current and historical perspectives on a matter which show the beliefs of the true church on military participation.
The Similarities and Dissimilarities between Martin Luther and Herbert W. Armstrong This article clearly shows some of the doctrinal differences between in the two. At this time of doctrinal variety and a tendency by many to accept certain aspects of Protestantism, the article should help clarify why the Living Church of God is NOT Protestant. Do you really know what the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther taught and should you follow his doctrinal example?
Persecutions by Church and State This article documents some that have occurred against those associated with the COGs and some prophesied to occur.
SDA/LCG Differences: Two Horned Beast of Revelation and 666 The Living Church of God is NOT part of the Seventh-day Adventists. This article explains two prophetic differences, the trinity, differences in approaching doctrine, including Ellen White.
Why Be Concerned About False and Heretical Leaders? There have been many false leaders–here is some of why you should be concerned about them.
Sola Scriptura or Prima Luther? What Did Martin Luther Really Believe About the Bible? Though he is known for his public sola Scriptura teaching, did Martin Luther’s writings about the Bible suggest he felt that prima Luther was his ultimate authority? Do you really want to know the truth?
Tradition and Scripture: From the Bible and Church Writings Are traditions on equal par with scripture? Many believe that is what Peter, John, and Paul taught. But did they?
The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?

COGwriter 

On Wednesday, COGaIC’s Peter Nathan posted:

So the truth is that some of the Jews tried to distance themselves from the practices of the true Christians.

And interestingly, perhaps it should be added here that the Greco-Romans decided to distance themselves from the Jews.  According to Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, Book III chapter 18, one of the reasons that the Roman Emperor Constantine aound 325 AD stated that Passover should be changed to Easter Sunday was because he declared:

Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way.

I do not recall Jesus indicating that Jews were detestable (He was a Jew) nor that He ever changed the date of Passover.

Actually, the Saviour observed Passover on the 14th of Nisan. It is those who reject that ways of our Saviour who accept the decision of the Roman Emperor over the Bible who do not observe it then. Notice that the first consideration was to not follow the Jews–and Constantine never cited any scripture for his change.

Yet, during this whole time the true Church of God kept the original practices of Jesus and the apostles.  And still does so today. 

And the Church of God did not change it because of Jewish or Greco-Roman changes.

Passover is only a week away (after sunset April 18th this year).

Articles of related interest may include:

Passover and the Early Church Did the early Christians observe Passover? What did Jesus and Paul teach? Why did Jesus die for our sins?
Melito’s Homily on the Passover This is one of the earliest Christian writings about the Passover. This also includes what Apollinaris wrote on the Passover as well.
Should Christians Keep the Days of Unleavened Bread? Do they have any use or meaning now? This article supplies some biblical answers.
Is There “An Annual Worship Calendar” In the Bible? This paper provides a biblical and historical critique of several articles, including one by WCG which states that this should be a local decision. What do the Holy Days mean? Also you can click here for the calendar of Holy Days.
What Happened in the Crucifixion Week? How long are three days and three nights? Did Jesus die on “Good Friday”? Was the resurrection on Sunday? Do you really know? Who determined the date of Easter?
Did Early Christians Celebrate Easter? If not, when did this happen? What do scholars and the Bible reveal?
The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?

TRANSFORMED FROM TRUTH 

WCG Was NOT Transformed BY Truth, but FROM Truth

COGwriter 

In the April/May 2008 edition of WCG’s Christian Odyssey, Paul Kroll wrote:

renaeus has been called the most important Christian theologian between the apostles and the third century. He was a Greek born in Roman Proconsular Asia, today southwestern Turkey, probably between A.D. 130-140…

His widely-circulated theological work in five books was titled On the Detection and Refutation of the Knowledge Falsely So Called. Written about 175-185, it exposed the heresies of various Gnostic sects, especially the most sophisticated group, the Valentinians…

Trinitarian theology

Irenaeus testified to the church’s Trinitarian understanding of God’s nature long before the councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) produced their traditional confessional creed. “Indeed in his various statements of faith there appear all the essentials of the Creed of Nicaea except its technical terms.”

Irenaeus explained that the church “received from the apostles and their disciples the faith in one God the Father Almighty…and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, incarnate for our salvation, and in the Holy Spirit.” He also insisted that God’s word witnesses to the Son of God in the Incarnation being fully God as well as true man. “All the prophets and apostles and the Spirit itself” testify to this, he said…

Irenaeus’ legacy is his struggle to preserve and pass on the revelation of God that had been given to the apostles whom Christ chose. It’s no wonder both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches consider him among the special “saints” of the church and Catholics celebrate a memorial festival day in his honor each June 28th. 

It is astounding that WCG, the Catholics, the Orthodox, and the Protestants try to rely on Irenaeus for much, but especially this.

Irenaeus was a BINITARIAN, not a trinitarian, writer. 

Furthermore, it was heretic Valentinus (who WCG acknowledges that Irenaeus wrote against) who was perhaps the first one to attempt to claim that Christians should accept the trinity.

Notice what was what it is recorded by a one-time Catholic bishop named Marcellus of Ancyra on the nature of God around the middle of the fourth century,

Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God…These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him ‘On the Three Natures’.  For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato (Source: Logan A. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), ‘On the Holy Church’: Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9.  Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95 ).

The fact is that Valentinus was probably the first trinitarian to feign Christianity. 

Near the end of the second century (Circa 180), Irenaeus wrote this in his famous paper against heresies:

…there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption (Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book IV, Preface, Verse 4. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Notice that he does not say that the Holy Spirit is also called God. Also notice that Irenaeus states that only the Father, the Son, and those who possess the adoption (Christians) are God (hence his writings support the idea of deification as LCG teaches it–see Deification: Did the Early Church Teach That Christians Would Become God?). This is a binitarian, not a trinitarian view.  Hence, he clearly was NOT TRINITARIAN.

At least one trinitarian scholar has acknowledged:

The language of the New Testament permits the Holy Spirit to be understood as an impersonal force or influence more readily than it does the Son…The attempt to develop an understanding of the Holy Spirit consistent with the trinitarian passages…came to fruition at Constantinople in 381…those who saw the Holy Spirit as a Person, were often heretical, for example, the Montanists (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, p. 140).

The fact is that the early church held to a binitarian, not trinitarian, view of the Godhead.

But to actually claim that Irenaeus was trinitarian when he wrote against the first one who claimed that Christians should be trinitarian, is bizarre.

But that is what happens when a group is transformed from the truth of the Bible to traditions of men.

Several articles of related interest may include:

Binitarian View: One God, Two Beings Before the BeginningIs binitarianism the correct position? What about unitarianism or trinitarianism?
Is The Father God? What is the view of the Bible? What was the view of the early church?
Jesus is God, But Was Made Man Was Jesus fully human and fully God or what?
Tradition and Scripture: From the Bible and Church Writings Are traditions on equal par with scripture? Many believe that is what Peter, John, and Paul taught. But did they?
Did Early Christians Think the Holy Spirit Was A Separate Person in a Trinity? Or did they have a different view?
Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity? Most act like this is so, but is it?
Was Unitarianism the Teaching of the Bible or Early Church? Many, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, claim it was, but was it?
Valentinus: The Gnostic Trinitarian Heretic He apparently was the first Christ-professing heretic to come up with the idea of three hypostases.

A Shmura Matzo (Unleavened Bread is Used for Passover) 

COGwriter 

After sunset Friday, April 18th, those who still believe what the old WCG and the Bible taught will be observing Passover.

While most in the Catholic and Protestant world think that Passover is “Jewish”, the truth is that Passover was most definitely observed by early Christians.

Faithful Christians, such as Polycratesin the late 2nd century wrote that he and the other early church leaders (like the Apostles Philip and John, and their successors like Polycarp, Thraseas, Sagaris, Papirius, Melito) all kept Passover, and Polycrates said when they kept it:

All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven (Eusebius. Church History, Book V, Chapter 24).

And even heretical “professing Christians” kept it (though they changed the date of it).

Passover actually was part of “the faith once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).

If you consider yourself a Christian, you may wish to look into this matter further, pray about it, and check out what your Bible and early Christians taught about it.

Several articles of related interest would include:

Is There “An Annual Worship Calendar” In the Bible? This paper provides a biblical and historical critique of several articles, including one by WCG which states that this should be a local decision. What do the Holy Days mean? Also you can click here for the calendar of Holy Days.
Passover and the Early Church Did the early Christians observe Passover? What did Jesus and Paul teach? Why did Jesus die for our sins?
Melito’s Homily on the PassoverThis is one of the earliest Christian writings about the Passover. This also includes what Apollinaris wrote on the Passover as well.
Should Christians Keep the Days of Unleavened Bread? Do they have any use or meaning now? This article supplies some biblical answers.
What Happened in the Crucifixion Week? How long are three days and three nights? Did Jesus die on “Good Friday”? Was the resurrection on Sunday? Do you really know? Who determined the date of Easter?
Did Early Christians Celebrate Easter? If not, when did this happen? What do scholars and the Bible reveal?
What Does the Catholic Church Teach About Christmas and the Holy Days? Do you know what the Catholic Church says were the original Christian holy days? Was Christmas among them?