Church of God News

Ancient Laodicea

COGwriter

One of the differences between the Living Church of God (LCG) and the United Church of God (UCG) is how they approach the matter of “church eras” in regards to the churches of Revelation 2 & 3.

In a shot directly against me (titled COGWriter Shows Inconsistency in Church Eras), UCG blogger John Carmack posted the following:

The main problem is how can an “era” come to an end and still have an entire group representing another era left behind?  When an empire falls, the empire is smashed.  It is gone.  Similarly, if the “Philadelphian era” of the church is over, then that church no longer exists.

You know what?  According to the usual identification given, Sardis still exists as well.  How can that be?  In fact, I believe Thyatira is still around.  There certainly is a group that seems to fit the description.  Again, if eras are true, how could that be?

Now, if John Carmack actually read what I have written about “church eras”, I specifically do state that Sardis, Laodicea, Thyatira, and Philadelphia all exist at the end.

There is no inconsistency that I am aware of in my writings on this as I and LCG (unlike UCG which hedges) teach:

The Living Church of God traces its history from the Apostolic Church in the Book of Acts (the Ephesian era) to the present. The message to the seven Churches in Revelation two and three successively shows the history of the true Church from that time forward. These seven Churches describe succeeding eras, or ages, of God’s Church. We believe that the Philadelphia era began in the 1930s, and that we are a continuation of that Philadelphia era. (Living Church of God, Official Statement of Fundamental Beliefs–Church History)

The Laodicean Church is the last one mentioned in the book of Revelation (Revelation 3:14-22). As the last, it is the one that will be the most dominant at the time of the end. The word “Laodicea” can be rendered “the people rule”, “judgment of the people” or the “people decide.” Laodicea is characterized by a rejection of the governance accepted by the Philadelphians, and by a general lukewarm attitude. Laodicea places emphasis on self (as opposed to proclaiming the Gospel), thus it also waters down the Truth-and so is “rebuked and chastened” and counseled “to buy from Me gold refined in the fire” (Revelation 3:18-19).Because Laodicea is dominant at the end of the age, Philadelphia cannot be predominant then. However, a remnant of Philadelphia must still exist. We know this because Jesus told the Philadelphians: “Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. Behold, I am coming quickly!” (Revelation 3:10-11). The Philadelphians are the only ones promised protection! The remnant of the Philadelphians are “given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent” (Revelation 12:14). (Thiel B.  What is a True Philadelphian?  Living Church News, July-August 2001)

In chapters 2 and 3 of Revelation, Christ reveals the characteristics of the seven ages or “eras” of God’s true Church. He finds some fault with most of the seven churches or “eras”—but not Philadelphia. These “eras” represent attitudes that are always present in God’s Church, and they also indicate the progression of “dominant” attitudes in the Church at large. Today, we are clearly in the Laodicean era, which Christ condemns for being “lukewarm” even though it has most of the Truth. The living Jesus Christ said: “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth” (Revelation 3:15–16).The Living Church of God, which has produced this booklet you are now reading, strives to retain the Philadelphia emphasis even in our Laodicean age. (Meredith RC.  Where is God;s True Church Today?  LCG booklet, 2005)

LCG teaches that while a certain attitude predominates one era at a time, that some from other “eras” still exist during that time.  Essentially, LCG teaches a series of overlapping eras.  (John Carmack may wish to consider, for a carnal example, that industrialists existed after the industrial era, etc.  The problem is not inconsistency, but the fact that the idea of “eras” includes overlap, and does not preclude individuals who are outside the norm for their time/era.)

This was also the position of the late Herbert W. Armstrong who specifically taught that Sardis (mainly represented by CG7) was around during the time Philadelphia predominated.  This was also the position of all the top leaders of UCG prior to them becoming part of UCG (they compromised afterwards).

I am sorry that John Carmack and others in UCG do not understand “church eras”.  This is one of the many ways in which I believe they have allowed themselves to go astray and will lead to less correct understanding of end time prophecy as events unfold.  Here is some of what it has published on “church eras”:

“You asked if the messages to the seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3 can be applied to eras of church history. As Mr. Herbert Armstrong said in the past, there were seven churches in Asia minor during the life of the apostle John that had certain strengths and weaknesses. Those same strengths and weaknesses could be evident in any church congregation today. Some believe that they also described church eras that began with the apostolic age and until Jesus Christ returns. Since some have disputed this idea, it is a subject that needs more study to see what we can know for sure and what remains in the unknown.” (Internet Correspondence from info@ucg.com to Dr. Thiel. November 13, 1997)

“Since seven represents completeness, these seven lampstands seem to portray a composite picture of the Church of God, the light of the world. Paul explains that the Church is one body (I Corinthians 12:12-13; Ephesians 4:4). However, it has multiple congregations and members scattered throughout the nations. Therefore, these seven specific assemblies of believers appear to effectively represent the totality of the Church. It appears likely that the prophecies of the Church in Revelation 2 and 3 have multiple meanings and applications” (Foster, Roger. God’s Church in Prophecy. Good News, expanded edition. Jul-Aug 2000; p. 8).

“Mr. Walker asked for the Council’s input on this question – how should the Church deal with honest differences in opinion on prophetic topics? Not every issue of prophecy will create this dilemma, he stated, but some will. How do we deal with alternate explanations? Richard Thompson: ‘It could be that the traditional teaching is that we allow three different explanations – for example, the seven churches of Revelation’ ” (Johnson, Doug. United Church of God, an International Association Council of Elders Meeting Report Monday, March 4, 2002 – Cincinnati, Ohio).

From January 2002 through August 2002, UCG ran a series of articles on the 7 Churches of Revelation 2 & 3 written by David Treybig. Unlike anything that WCG ever produced, these articles never say anything about Church eras, do not indicate that the Church was predominant at any particular time, do not mention who or when the Church may have been primarily extant, never mention that Herbert Armstrong was used to raise up the Philadelphia era (or that he left the Sardis era), or anything else suggesting that UCG officially believes in Church eras (which is because officially UCG does not).

Of course there is a reason that UCG does not wish to clearly teach church eras, and that is that they will not like which era that they would have to conclude they are part of.

As far as my writings, several of my articles essentially state, “Revelation 2 & 3 shows a series, in an apparent overlapping succession of Churches of God, each with somewhat different strengths and weaknesses” (The Apostle John and Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus and Smyrna).

My writings on church eras are not inconsistent and I do consider that John Carmack is unintentionally bearing false witness here.  The fact that he does not understand a doctrine that he should have held, but since changed, is sad but consistent with others who have lost the knowledge of proper church governance, priority of gospel proclamation, and other such non-Philadelphia positions.

Those who understand church eras better understand how God has worked through the Church throughout the ages and how He plans to work through it in the future.

Some articles of possibly related interest may include:

Polycarp, Herbert W. Armstrong, and Roderick C. Meredith on Church Government What form of governance did the early church have? Was it hierarchical? Which form of governance would one expect to have in the Philadelphia remnant? The people decide and/or committee forms, odd dictatorships, or the same type that the Philadelphia era itself had?
Unity: Which COG for You? Why so many groups? Why is there lack of unity in the Churches of God? Has it always been this way? What can/should be done about it?
Differences between the Living Church of God and United Church of God This article provides quotes information from the two largest groups which had their origins in WCG as well as commentary.
There are Many COGs: Why Support the Living Church of God? This is an article for those who wish to more easily sort out the different COGs. It really should be a MUST READ for current and former WCG/GCI members or any interested in supporting the faithful church. It also explains a lot of what the COGs are all about.
Old Testament Church Eras Are there seven church eras in the Old Testament? Do they parallel those in Revelation 2 &3?
The Churches of Revelation 2 & 3 from 31 A.D. to present: information on all of the seven churches of Revelation 2 & 3.
1. The Ephesus Church Era was predominant from 31 A.D. to circa 135 A.D. The Church of James, Peter, Paul, and John, etc.
2. The Smyrna Church Era was predominant circa 135 A.D. to circa 450 A.D. The Church led by Polycarp, Melito, Polycrates, etc.
3. The Pergamos Church Era was predominant circa 450 A.D. to circa 1050 A.D. An especially persecuted Church.
4. The Thyatira Church Era was predominant circa 1050 A.D. to circa 1600 A.D. The Church during the Inquisition.
5. The Sardis Church Era was predominant circa 1600 A.D. to circa 1933 A.D. Discusses early history of the Seventh Day Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and COG-7th Day.
6. The Philadelphia Church Era was predominant circa 1933 A.D. to 1986 A.D. The old Radio Church of God and old Worldwide Church of God, now basically the Living Church of God.
7. The Laodicean Church Era has been predominant circa 1986 A.D. to present. These are non-Philadelphians who mainly descended from the old WCG.

COGWriter

August 15th is a holiday known as the Assumption of Mary.

Wikipedia made the following observations:

According to the belief…of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Anglican Communion, the Assumption of Mary was the bodily taking up of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven at the end of her life. The Roman Catholic Church teaches as dogma that the Virgin Mary, “having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”[1] This doctrine was dogmatically and infallibly defined by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950, in his Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus. This belief is known as the Dormition by the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. In the churches which observe it, the Assumption is a major festival, commonly celebrated on August 15. In many countries it is a Catholic Holy Day of Obligation…In East Orthodox churches following the Julian Calendar, the feast day of Assumption of Mary falls on August 28, and is also a public holiday in the Republic of Macedonia.

I would like to add that many take devotion to “Mary” quite seriously.  Below is a photo my wife Joyce took of prayer notes to “Mary” next to where her final home in Ephesus was supposed to be:

Now it is possible that Mary did live in Ephesus.  Basically, the Bible records that Jesus asked the Apostle John to take care of His mother while He was being crucified, and John accepted (John 19:26-27). As far as John being in Ephesus, Polycrates sent a letter to Pope Victor towards the end of the second century and stated that John died in Ephesus (Eusebius. Church History. Book V, Chapter 25).  Hence, it is logical that Mary could have as well.  The fact that Mary was not mentioned in that letter from Polycrates (and many were) indicates that she may not have gone to Ephesus–she may, for one possibility, simply have died in the Jerusalem area before John moved to Ephesus (which was likely the mid-late 60s A.D.).

But this belief in the “Assumption of Mary”–the teaching that she did perhaps did not die but went directly to heaven–is based on assumption and mysticism.

The Catholic Encyclopedia admits:

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known…The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.  The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite.(Holweck, Frederick. “The Feast of the Assumption.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 14 Aug. 2010 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm>)

So, according to The Catholic Encyclopedia the basis for the “belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal” texts which were claimed to be written by people (like the Apostle John and Melito of Sardis) who did not write them.  This makes no sense as a source for any dogma people would hold to be true. The Catholic writer Epiphanius, in the late fourth century, wrote:

Perhaps this [Rev. 12:13-14] can be applied to her; I cannot decide for certain, and I am not saying that she remained immortal.  But neither am I saying that she died. (Panarion of Epiphanius, 78.11.4.  As cited in Shoemaker S. The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption.  Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 12)

Notice what the scripture Epiphanius referred to actually states:

13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child: 14 And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. (Revelation 12:13-14, Douay-Rheims).

Notice that “the woman” goes to “the desert” and “here she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time”.  Heaven is NOT a desert.  Also understand that Catholic scholars tend to correctly believe that the expression “a time and times, and half a time” refers to 3 1/2 years (and even if that was in error, this is a finite period of time, not nearly two thousand years).  Thus, it makes no sense that Revelation 12:13-14 could possibly apply to Mary.  Epiphanius should have been able to decide for certain that it did not, around 400 years after she was born. It should be clear that the idea of Mary’s “assumption” was not a dogmatic belief centuries after she would likely have been expected to have died.  Of course, the Bible was clear in the mid-late 1st century that only Jesus had immortality:

13 I charge thee before God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who gave testimony under Pontius Pilate, a good confession,  14 That thou keep the commandment without spot, blameless, unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 Which in his times he shall shew who is the Blessed and only Mighty, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality, and inhabiteth light inaccessible, whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and empire everlasting. Amen. (1 Timothy 6:13-16, Douay-Rheims)

Note that I used the Catholic-approved Douay-Rheims translation in this article to show that these ideas have support even within Catholic-approved writings.  If Mary was immortal then, then the Apostle Paul would not have been inspired to write that.  The Catholic Saint Augustine wrote of “her death” (Augustine.  Tractates on the Gospel of John (Augustine) > Tractate 8, Chapter 9. Translated by John Gibb. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701008.htm>), thus the idea of Mary dying was an old concept. Dr. Douglas Winnail made the following observation:

The Bible never refers to Mary’s “Immaculate Conception”—the doctrine that she was born without sin. Nor does it teach the “Assumption”—the doctrine that Mary was bodily transported to heaven. Rather, Scripture clearly states that “no one has ascended to heaven” except Jesus (John 3:13).  (Winnail DS. The Lady of Nations. Tomorrow’s World, LCG Magazine.  Nov-Dec 2003).

So where did the idea of Mary’s assumption come from? Basically, from apocryphal literature in the fourth century (or possibly as early as the late third century)–but mainly even later than that.  Although Epiphanius tried to investigate it, he was uncertain. Mary’s “assumption” became more of an issue after the death of Mohammed.  Wikipedia notes:

John of Damascus, from this period, is the first church authority to advocate the doctrine under his own name; he had been brought up in an environment in which a corporeal ascent of Muhammed into heaven was official policy, since he, and his father before him, held the post of imperial chancellor of the Islamic empire of the Umayyads, and Muhammed’s ascent into heaven is the subject of the Night Journey, a Surah in the Quran. His contemporaries, Gregory of Tours and Modestus of Jerusalem, helped promote the concept to the wider church.

So, since the Muslims claimed that Muhammed went to directly to heaven, certain Catholics began to promote the idea. However, it should be pointed out that the place of the “assumption” changed.  Wikipedia reports:

In some versions of the story the event is said to have taken place in Ephesus, in the House of the Virgin Mary, although this is a much more recent and localized tradition. The earliest traditions all locate the end of Mary’s life in Jerusalem…

So, the earliest accounts claimed Jerusalem, but that was later changed to Ephesus by some.  If Mary died 3-15 years after Jesus, then she likely did not die in the area near Ephesus. Another article in The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions:

As to tradition, there is some testimony for Mary’s temporary residence in or near Ephesus, but the evidence for her permanent home in Jerusalem is much stronger… In Panaghia Kapoli, on a hill about nine or ten miles distant from Ephesus, was discovered a house, or rather its remains, in which Mary is supposed to have lived. The house was found, as it had been sought, according to the indications given by Catherine Emmerich in her life of the Blessed Virgin… In 451 Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, testified to the presence of Mary’s tomb in Jerusalem…Another witness for the existence of a tradition placing the tomb of Mary in Gethsemani is the basilica erected above the sacred spot, about the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century… It has been seen that we have no absolute certainty as to the place in which Mary lived after the day of Pentecost. Though it is more probable that she remained uninterruptedly in or near Jerusalem, she may have resided for a while in the vicinity of Ephesus, and this may have given rise to the tradition of her Ephesian death and burial. There is still less historical information concerning the particular incidents of her life. (Maas, Anthony. “The Blessed Virgin Mary.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 14 Aug. 2010 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm>)

Of course, the presence of a tomb suggests that one was buried within it, not assumed directly to heaven.  Others have claimed her body left the tomb:

In the eighth century, St. John Damascene was known for giving sermons at the holy places in Jerusalem. At the Tomb of Mary, he expressed the belief of the Church on the meaning of the feast: “Although the body was duly buried, it did not remain in the state of death, neither was it dissolved by decay. . . . You were transferred to your heavenly home, O Lady, Queen and Mother of God in truth.” (Stevens C, Priest.  Assumption of Mary.  Catholic Heritage, July-August 1996. http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/aofmary.htm)

S. Shoemaker also claims that the earliest accounts of the assumption state it occurred in Jerusalem, but later Ephesus:

Nevertheless, the earliest evidence of any such belief appears only in the ninth century, in a Syriac manuscript, copied in 874 which reports that Mary accompanied John to Ephesus, where she died and was buried.  (Shoemaker S. The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption.  Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 75)

Anne Catherine Emmerich

By the way, there is a plaque outside of Ephesus near the house that Mary allegedly lived in from the Church of Rome which basically declares that this is Mary’s house (I read the plaque when I was last there).  Pope Pius XII declared it a Holy Place as did Pope John XXIII (it is an important religious site for Muslims too); Wikipedia reports “Pope Paul VI visited the shrine on July 26, 1967, and ‘unofficially’ confirmed its authenticity.”  The idea that Mary’s house was specifically there was allegedly developed because of visions that the mystic nun Anne Catherine Emmerich claimed to have had in the early 19th century.  Because of her visions,one or more priests went to Ephesus and found a house apparently matching her descriptions (Shoemaker, p. 76).  Some in the local area confirmed the location as Mary’s last house.  And while some may claim that is proof it was Mary’s home, I should also add that Anne Catherine Emmerich claimed to have seen Limbo in her visions, yet the current Pontiff (Benedict XVI) has indicated that there is no such place as Limbo (What is Limbo? Is There Such a Place as Limbo? What Happens to Babies When They Die?).  Despite this, on October 3, 2004 Anne Catherine Emmerich was beatified by Pope John Paul II.

But irrespective of what location may have been “Mary’s house”, the historical accuracy of the “assumption of Mary”, is at best an assumption that seems to contradict scripture.  Although some have claimed that the apostles originally reported “the assumption” there do not appear to be any pre-fourth century documents that state this (and even the “apostolic claim” was from testimony in the mid-fifth century by Juvenal, see The Catholic Encyclopedia Assumption of Mary).

The assumption position mainly seems to be accepted because people want to believe it as opposed to basing it upon reliable historical documentation:

In view of the striking absence of early historical evidence, the Vatican proceeded to establish the Assumption dogma primarily on a dogmatic rather than a historical basis.  It was determined that despite the complete lack of any historical evidence for early belief in the Virgin’s Assumption, the dogma should still be proclaimed…

(Shoemaker S. The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption.  Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 15)

Wikipedia also noted:

Protestant theologians…cite the fact that the idea did not gain acceptance in the church until the sixth century, after Gregory of Tours accepted the apocryphal work “Transitus Beatae Mariae”…Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott stated, “The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus-narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries…. The first Church author to speak of the bodily assumption of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours.”…The Catholic writer Eamon Duffy goes further, conceding that “there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it.”…

In Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma he states that “the fact of her death is almost generally accepted by the Fathers and Theologians, and is expressly affirmed in the Liturgy of the Church”, to which he adduces a number of helpful citations, and concludes that “for Mary, death, in consequence of her freedom from original sin and from personal sin, was not a consequence of punishment of sin. However, it seems fitting that Mary’s body, which was by nature mortal, should be, in conformity with that of her Divine Son, subject to the general law of death”…The point of her bodily death has not been infallibly defined, and many believe that she did not die at all, but was assumed directly into Heaven. The dogmatic definition within the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus which, according to Roman Catholic dogma, infallibly proclaims the doctrine of the Assumption leaves open the question whether, in connection with her departure, Mary underwent bodily death; that is, it does not dogmatically define the point one way or the other, as shown by the words “having completed the course of her earthly life”…Many Catholics also believe that Mary first died before being assumed, but they add that she was miraculously resurrected before being assumed…This doctrine was dogmatically and infallibly defined by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950, in his Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus.

The holiday, then, is an assumption based upon mystic literature like the Transitus Mariae, essentially combined with a dogmatic declaration in 1950.

Now, the Transitus Mary was allegedly an account from an apparition claiming to be Mary.  Yet, Catholics need to realize that in the early 6th century, a papal decree, Decretum Gelasianum, classified the Transitus Mariae writings as apocryphal (The Transitus Mariae Non-canonical Account of Mary’s passing. http://www.bibleprobe.com/transitusmariae.htm). Anyway, the Transitus Mariae claims that John was in Ephesus and the Holy Spirit transported him to Mary in Bethlehem (Smith Lewis A.  Apocrypha syriaca: the Protevangelium Jacobi and Transitus Mariae, with texts from the Septuagint, the Corân, the Peshiṭta, and from a Syriac hymm in a Syro-Arabic palimpsest of the fifth and other centuries. C.J. Clay and sons, 1902, p. 25) and that Mary was taken in to heaven from her house in Bethlehem (p. 33) and that was within the jurisdiction of the governor of Jerusalem (p. 36).

Now, having been to Ephesus a couple of times, I would like mention the Islamic Turks in that area actually do celebrate the “assumption of Mary” as well.  Not because it is mentioned in the Quran (it does not seem to be), but because Mary is mentioned in the Quran more times than Jesus, Muslims tend to venerate her to a degree.

Perhaps I should add that August 15th is considered by certain Catholics to be Mary’s “heavenly birthday”.  However, perhaps it should be pointed out that early Christians did not observe birthdays (Did Early Christians Celebrate Birthdays?), hence the “birthday into heaven” position also was not a position of early Christians.

Why the Assumption of Mary Dogma?

Notice what the Catholic news agency Zenit reported:

Why a…dogmatic pronouncement on the Assumption? Because the Vicar of Christ…was inspired to do so to bring forth a new outpouring of grace for the Church through the intercession of the Queen of Heaven — the Mediatrix of all graces who was newly honored by a solemn papal proclamation of her parting earthly prerogative…

One objection voiced during the months preceding the 1950 definition by a group of theologians was that the new Marian definition would wreak havoc to ecumenical efforts newly initiated with other Christians. The late Cardinal Edouard Gagnon who lived through the years preceding and proceeding the Assumption definition, repeatedly testified to the opposite — that immediately following the papal proclamation of Our Lady’s Assumption, the Church experienced its greatest ever advancement in ecumenism in Church history up to its time, which consequently led to its historic flourishing at the Second Vatican Council.

Mothers unite. They do not divide. (Our Lady and Dogmas: Pondering the Assumption.  ZE10081612 – 2010-08-16. Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-30069?l=english)

So, the dogma is for the eventual ecumenical plans of the Church of Rome.

Based upon visions of various mystics, current practices of the Church of Rome, and biblical prophecies associated with “signs and lying wonders” (2 Thessalonians 2:9), it seems likely that apparitions claiming to be Mary may mislead others in the future in order to encourage ecumenical unification across church lines.  And this view, is not unique to me.

The following was written over a decade ago by a member of the Orthodox Church and is warning people that false apparitions claiming to be Mary will lead to people to Antichrist:

…is it any wonder that contemporary “apparitions” of Mary are invariably accompanied by ecumenistic messages promoting the idea that all religions are equally valid and Orthodox Christianity is but one “path” among many? A recent issse of Orthodox Traidition (1966) contains the account of Matushka (wife of a Russian Orthodox priest) Katherine Swanson’s trip to Medjugorje, Croatia, to investigate the most famous of the recent cases of appartions of Mary in the Roman Catholic world. In it she recounts a telling episode:

Our guide took our group for an audience with the “seers.” During this audience, a pilgrim asked one of the children the following questions: “Does the Virgin say that the Catholic Church is the true church?” The response given by the child provides clear evidence of the ecumenical content and religious relativism which, oddly enough, increasingly mark the “revelations” at Medjugorje: “Our Blessed Mother says that all religions are equally pleasing to God.“…

To which Mary are Muslims and Protestants being drawn? …

Today, as heterodox Christians become more and more ecumenist and work toward creating a “One World Church,” the search has begun for a Mary of universal recognition, one who will appeal not only to those who bear the name Christian, but apprently to Muslims and others as well, just as attempts are likewise being made to identify the “new Christ” with the Muslim concept of their coming Mahdi and with the Messiah still awaited by the Jews. This, of course, will be no Christ at all but the antichrist.

(Jackson P. ORTHODOX LIFE., No. I, 1997., Brotherhood of Saint Job of Pochaev at Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, N.Y. pp. 18-22.  http://fr-d-serfes.org/orthodox/theotokos.htm viewed 05/11/09)

The reality is that it is likely that false apparitions, claiming to be “Mary” may be among the signs and lying wonders that the Bible warns are coming (2 Thessalonians 2:9).

Hence, if people assume that Mary was “assumed” (taken up) to heaven, many people will likely also accept that she is current alive today (even though she, like others, is awaiting the resurrection, cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16).  Thus, they may be favorably inclined to listen to one in the future who will claim to be her.

Don’t assume that Mary was assumed to heaven, nor assume that if in the future there are public apparitions claiming to be Mary, that they are in fact her.  Mary is dead and awaiting the resurrection.  And while the Bible does call her “blessed” (Luke 1:28,42), her veneration and assumption into heaven are not biblical doctrines, nor were they held by even the Church of Rome until after the start of the fourth century (or late third century).

The idea of an “assumption of Mary” is only an assertion, originally based upon literature declared to be apocryphal as well as mystic visions that were also faulty.  It should not be dogma as it was not the position of the early Church.  Sadly, it is expected to be an ecumenical tool that will not be good.  Neither for the Orthodox or the Vatican (Revelation 17:15-17).

For more information, please check out the following:

Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Apparitions Do you know much about Mary? Are the apparitions real? What might they mean for the rise of the ecumenical religion of Antichrist? Are Protestants moving towards Mary? How do the Orthodox view Mary? How might Mary view her adorers?
Why Should American Catholics Should Fear Unity with the Orthodox? Are the current ecumenical meetings a good thing or will they result in disaster?
Orthodox Must Reject Unity with the Roman Catholics The talks for unification involve compromise and the apparent rising up of a changed religion that no one should accept.
Catholic Prophecies: Do They Mirror, Highlight, or Contradict Biblical Prophecies? People of all faiths may be surprised to see what various Roman and Orthodox Catholic prophets have been predicting as many of their predictions will be looked to in the 21st century.
Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Living Church of God? Do you know that both groups shared a lot of the earliest teachings? Do you know which church changed? Do you know which group is most faithful to the teachings of the apostolic church? Which group best represents true Christianity? This documented article answers those questions. Português: Qual é fiel: A igreja católica romana ou a igreja viva do deus? Tambien Español: Cuál es fiel: ¿La iglesia católica romana o La Iglesia del Dios Viviente? Auch: Deutsch: Welches zuverlässig ist: Die Römisch-katholische Kirche oder die lebende Kirche von Gott?
What Did Early Christians Understand About the Resurrection? Is there more than one future resurrection? Did early Christians teach a physical resurrection? Did early Christians teach three resurrections?

Interior of Modern Cenacle, Jerusalem

COGwriter

Zenit.org, a pro-Vatican news source reported the following:

“Mother Church” Develops ‘11 Christian Unity Week

Jerusalem Communities Point to 1st-Century Harmony
VATICAN CITY, JULY 14, 2010 (Zenit.org).- The appeal for communion at the base of the 2011 Week of Prayer for Christian Unity comes this year from a church uniquely placed to speak of both division and harmony.

It should be pointed out that in the first century church, everyone, including the Apostle John, kept Passover on the 14th of Nisan in Jerusalem (Eusebius. Church History. Book V, Chapter 25) as it “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).  Keeping the original “Jewish” practices is the record of historians such as Eusebius (Eusebius. Church History, Book IV, Chapter 5) and Gibbon (Gibbon E. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume I, Chapter XV, Section I. ca. 1776-1788).  It is believed that the building known as the “Cenacle” is located above where Jesus and His disciples kept His last Passover, which was also on the 14th of Nisan.  For true and biblical unity, all churches should observe Passover on the same date.  The original date.  Nearly all the Sabbath-keeping Church of God groups in Southern California do this.

The idea of Jerusalem being the “mother church” partially comes from the following scripture:

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. (Galatians 4:26, KJV)

A scripture, written by the Apostle Paul, that should be of related interest would be the following commendation to a Gentile church for following the practices that those in Judea had:

13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.  14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus (1 Thessalonians 2:13-14, KJV).

And the practices that the churches of God in Judea (which included Jerusalem) had were those that modern theologians tend to consider to be Jewish or Judeo-Christian.

Sadly, those practices were lost in Jerusalem after the takeover in 135 A.D. under Emperor Hadrian.

Jerusalem Lost Apostolic Succession

Although certain Vatican sources now want unity with the Eastern Orthodox in Jerusalem and elsewhere, it may be of interest to note that until recently, Catholic scholars pretty much all taught until fairly recently that the Orthodox church in Jerusalem did NOT have apostolic succession.  And that Jerusalem lost it after Hadrian’s troops took over Jerusalem and forced the faithful to flee Jerusalem in the early portion of the second century.

In the second century, even the Catholic and Orthodox saint Irenaeus taught that Jerusalem lost its “apostolic succession”:

Further, also, concerning Jerusalem and the Lord, they venture to assert that, if it had been “the city of the great King,” it would not have been deserted. This is just as if any one should say, that if straw were a creation of God, it would never part company with the wheat; and that the vine twigs, if made by God, never would be lopped away and deprived of the clusters…The fruit, therefore, having been sown throughout all the world, she (Jerusalem) was deservedly forsaken, and those things which had formerly brought forth fruit abundantly were taken away; for from these, according to the flesh, were Christ and the apostles enabled to bring forth fruit. But now these are no longer useful for bringing forth fruit. For all things which have a beginning in time must of course have an end in time also (Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book IV, Chapter IV, Verse 1).

So while the Orthodox also consider Irenaeus to be a saint and Jerusalem to be one of the five “Apostolic Sees”, Irenaeus basically taught that God was finished using Jerusalem as a type of headquarters in this age.  Irenaeus’ “forsaken” statement is probably referring to those that fled Jerusalem prior to its destruction in 70 A.D. or at the latest 135 A.D.

Note what happened in Jerusalem according to the historian E. Gibbon:

The first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were all circumcised Jews; and the congregation over which they presided united the law of Moses with the doctrine of Christ. It was natural that the primitive tradition of a church which was founded only forty days after the death of Christ, and was governed almost as many years under the immediate inspection of his apostle, should be received as the standard of orthodoxy. The distant churches very frequently appealed to the authority of their venerable Parent, and relieved her distresses by a liberal contribution of alms…

The Nazarenes retired from the ruins of Jerusalem to the little town of Pella beyond the Jordan, where that ancient church languished above sixty years in solitude and obscurity. They still enjoyed the comfort of making frequent and devout visits to the Holy City, and the hope of being one day restored to those seats which both nature and religion taught them to love as well as to revere. But at length, under the reign of Hadrian, the desperate fanaticism of the Jews filled up the measure of their calamities; and the Romans, exasperated by their repeated rebellions, exercised the rights of victory with unusual rigour. The emperor founded, under the name of Alia Capitolina, a new city on Mount Sion, to which he gave the privileges of a colony; and denouncing the severest penalties against any of the Jewish people who should dare to approach its precincts, he fixed a vigilant garrison of a Roman cohort to enforce the execution of his orders. The Nazarenes had only one way left to escape the common proscription, and the force of truth was on this occasion assisted by the influence of temporal advantages.

They elected Marcus for their bishop, a prelate of the race of the Gentiles, and most probably a native either of Italy or of some of the Latin provinces. At his persuasion the most considerable part of the congregation renounced the Mosaic law, in the practice of which they had persevered above a century. By this sacrifice of their habits and prejudices they purchased a free admission into the colony of Hadrian…

When the name and honours of the church of Jerusalem had been restored to Mount Sion, the crimes of heresy and schism were imputed to the obscure remnant of the Nazarenes which refused to accompany their Latin bishop. They still preserved their former habitation of Pella, spread themselves into the villages adjacent to Damascus, and formed an inconsiderable church in the city of Bercea, or, as it is now called, of Aleppo, in Syria. The name of Nazarenes was deemed too honourable for those Christian Jews, and they soon received, from the supposed poverty of their understanding, as well as of their condition, the contemptuous epithet of Ebionites…The unfortunate Ebionites, rejected from one religion as apostates, and from the other as heretics, found themselves compelled to assume a more decided character; and although some traces of that obsolete sect may be discovered as late as the fourth century, they insensibly melted away either into the church or the synagogue…

It has been remarked with more ingenuity than truth that the virgin purity of the church was never violated by schism or heresy before the reign of Trajan or Hadrian, about one hundred years after the death of Christ (Gibbon E. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume I, Chapter XV, Section I. ca. 1776-1788).

It should be noted that, because of this revolt, Emperor Hadrian outlawed many practices considered to be Jewish. The Christians in Judea had a decision to make. They either could continue to keep the Sabbath and the rest of God’s law and flee or they could compromise and support a religious leader who would not keep the Sabbath, etc.

Sadly as E. Gibbon’s reported, most, but not all, made the wrong choice in 135 A.D. Jesus, of course, taught that the true church would be a “little flock” (Luke 12:32). This clearly led to a separation between the Christian faithful and those who preferred a form of Christianity more acceptable to the Roman world (for more specific details, please check out the article Nazarene Christianity: Were the Original Christians Nazarenes?). Those who claim Marcus as one of their leaders simply do not wish to retain true apostolic succession.

Furthermore, the Orthodox seem to acknowledge that a change came, but they are a but guarded about it. Notice this admission:

In 135 AD the Roman emperor Hadrian builds on the ruins of Jerusalem a new roman city and names it Aelia Capitolina and permits the Christians to come back. However the Jewish are not permitted to come in town (The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem.  http://www.holylight.gr/patria/enpatria.html viewed 11/30/07).

The “Jewish are not permitted to come in to town”?

That’s correct in a sense. Those who kept Jewish practices like the seventh-day Sabbath (and apparently Passover on the 14th) were not permitted to come into Jerusalem after its 135 A.D. takeover (though some snuck back in later). Thus, without admitting it, the Orthodox are acknowledging that changes did take place after 135 A.D. and those changes are proof that there was no faithful apostolic succession in Jerusalem.

And although the current Pope Benedict XVI acts otherwise, the traditional approved position of the Church of Rome for centuries has been that the Orthodox do not have apostolic succession.

Additionally, the other official Roman position is that even if the Orthodox did have it, they lost it no later than 1054:

Regarding the Greek Church, it is sufficient to note that it lost Apostlic succession by withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the lawful successors of St. Peter in the See of Rome. (O’Reilly, Thomas. “Apostolicity.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 24 Aug. 2008 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm>).

The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 notes that Jerusalem lost it in the early 2nd century:

The shortest-lived Apostolic Church is that of Jerusalem…the Holy City was destroyed by Hadrian, and a new town, Ælia Capitolina, erected on its site (Wilhelm J. Transcribed by Donald J. Boon. Apostolic Succession. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

So basically, despite the claims for unity and discussions about the “mother church” in Jerusalem, Catholic scholars have felt that the succession in Jerusalem was lost after Hadrian’s takeover.  And that is true.

It should be understood that a compromising group calling itself “Christian” but not adhering to the original practices of the first century church in Jerusalem did come into Jerusalem, but since they changed doctrine and practices, they never had real apostolic succession.  Any unity that should happen in Jerusalem should be, as the Zenit article quoted, “grounded in the experience of the early Church“.  Not a compromised one.

Ecumenical compromise is not what Jesus or His faithful followers stood for.  What all Christians need to do is to heed Jude’s admonition to “to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).  The Apostle John also wrote against a time when a false unity will be prevalent (Revelation 13:1-4) and claimed that “antichrists” would not follow his practices (1 John 2:18-22), thus unity with doctrinal compromise should never be the goal of any true Christian.

True unity with Jerusalem will come after the Holy City, New Jerusalem comes down from heaven (Revelation 21:2-4).  Until then, those that wish for that type of unity should study their Bibles, pray, and strive to keep the practices of the original faithful Jerusalem church as is laid out in the Bible.

Some articles of possibly 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?
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.
Nazarene Christianity: Were the Original Christians Nazarenes? Should Christians be Nazarenes today? What were the practices of the Nazarenes.
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!
Early Church History: Who Were the Two Major Groups Professed Christ in the Second and Third Centuries? Did you know that many in the second and third centuries felt that there were two major, and separate, professing Christian groups in the second century, but that those in the majority churches tend to now blend the groups together and claim “saints” from both? “Saints” that condemn some of their current beliefs. Who are the two groups?
Why Should American Catholics Should Fear Unity with the Orthodox? Are the current ecumenical meetings a good thing or will they result in disaster?
Orthodox Must Reject Unity with the Roman Catholics The talks for unification involve compromise and the apparent rising up of a changed religion that no one should accept.

Ruins of Smyrna (Izmir, Turkey)

COGwriter

Turkey has lately seemed a bit less pro-Western in some of its policies.  Its relationship with the EU also seems to be a bit more strained recently.  Today, the following was reported about it and the EU:

Turkey goes cool on joining the European Union as it falls for the lure of the East

Telegraph - July 11, 2010…

“If we don’t join, it will be Europe’s problem, not ours,” said Mr Canayaz, 25, who was relieved to be watching the recent Euro-zone crash from the outside rather than the inside…

Fadi Hakura…“For all the talk about that going in that direction, the country they would most like to become like is Germany.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/7883072/Turkey-goes-cool-on-joining-the-European-Union-as-it-falls-for-the-lure-of-the-East.html

My wife and I have been to Turkey on three occasions and when we discussed the EU with some Turks, basically we were told that the average Turk had little interest in the EU, but some of the political leaders were determined to move in that direction.

Since the current leadership of Turkey seems a little less pro-Western lately, it may be that little will happen with Turkey as far as being a potential nation to join the EU for some time.

Turkey is important to the Christian world for many reasons, including the fact that most of the books of the New Testament were written to or from people now living in the area which is now part of Turkish territory.  And the seven churches of Revelation 2 & 3 are all in Turkey (my wife and I have visited all of them at least once).

Items of possibly related interest may include the following:

The Churches of Revelation 2 & 3 from 31 A.D. to present: information on all of the seven churches of Revelation 2 & 3.
1. The Ephesus Church Era was predominant from 31 A.D. to circa 135 A.D. The Church of James, Peter, Paul, and John, etc.
2. The Smyrna Church Era was predominant circa 135 A.D. to circa 450 A.D. The Church led by Polycarp, Melito, Polycrates, etc.
3. The Pergamos Church Era was predominant circa 450 A.D. to circa 1050 A.D. An especially persecuted Church.
4. The Thyatira Church Era was predominant circa 1050 A.D. to circa 1600 A.D. The Church during the Inquisition.
5. The Sardis Church Era was predominant circa 1600 A.D. to circa 1933 A.D. Discusses early history of the Seventh Day Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and COG-7th Day.
6. The Philadelphia Church Era was predominant circa 1933 A.D. to 1986 A.D. The old Radio Church of God and old Worldwide Church of God, now basically the Living Church of God.
7. The Laodicean Church Era has been predominant circa 1986 A.D. to present. These are non-Philadelphians who mainly descended from the old WCG.
The New Testament Canon – From the Bible Itself This article, shows from the Bible and supporting sources, why the early Church knew which books were part of the Bible and which ones were not.

Catholic prophecy tells of a time when they expect the Turks to become Catholic:

Dionysius of Luxemberg (died 1682): a. “After the birth of Antichrist the people of the world will be very wicked and godless. People of real virtue will be very scarce. Pastors in many places will neglect the service of God, and will live with women. Even the religious will crave for worldly things. The churches will be dreary and empty like deserted barns…At the time when Antichrist is about twenty years of age the whole world will be without faith, subjects will be oppressed by rulers and others in authority. In every period of tribulation God aids His Church, and He will do it in the time before the coming of Antichrist. From the midst of His Church He will raise up a Christian ruler who will perform most remarkable deeds. With divine assistance this ruler will not only lead erring souls back to the true Faith but also deal a heavy blow to the foes of the empire; the Turks, to take away their empire and restore it to Christianity (Connor Edward. Prophecy for Today. Imprimatur + A.J. Willinger, Bishop of Monterey-Fresno; Reprint: Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford (IL), 1984, p.84).

Blessed Anna Maria Taigi (died 1837): “described to me the great ordeal ahead. Rome would be battered by revolutions…Millions of men would die by the sword in war and civil strife, other millions would perish in unforeseen death. Then entire nations would return to the unity of the Church, and many Turks, Pagans and Jews would be converted and their fervour cover with confusion the original Christians. In one word she told me that our Lord was intending to cleanse the world and His Church…” (Bessieres A. Wife, Mother and Mystic (Blessed Anna Maria Taigi). Nihil Obstat: Carlos Davis, S.T.L. Imprimatur: E Morrough Bernard, Westmonasteri, die Februari, 1952. Reprint TAN Books, Rockford (IL), 1982, p. 166).

Brother Louis Rocco (19th century): Terrible wars will rage all over Europe. God has long been patient with the corruption of morals; half of mankind He will destroy. Russia will witness many outrages. Great cities and small towns alike will be destroyed in a bloody revolution that will cause the death of half the population. In Istanbul (Constantinople) the Cross will replace the half-moon of Islamism, and Jerusalem will be the seat of a King. The southern Slavs will form a great Catholic Empire and drive out of Europe the Turks (Mohammedans), who will withdraw to North Africa and subsequently embrace the Catholic faith. (Dupont, Yves. Catholic Prophecy: The Coming Chastisement. TAN Books, Rockford (IL), 1973, p.76)

This is supposed to happen when the “Great Monarch” rises up and is supposedly to be assisted by Marian apparitions according to other Catholic prophecies.  In Turkey, near Ephesus, the Turks (which are almost all Muslims) actually  have an annual celebration related to Mary.  Mary is actually mentioned in the Koran more often than Jesus.  It would not surprise me if some Marian apparition may appear in Turkey in a few years as this may temporarily contribute to cooperation between “Catholic” and Islamic powers in the end time (cf. Daniel 11:27; Psalm 83).

It may be of interest to note that Nostradamus apparently felt that Turkey would end up betraying a coming Islamic leader:

Nostradamus: The Great Arab shall progress well forward, But betrayed shall be by the Byzantines. (Turks).

Comment on above from Catholic writer Yves Dupont: Here, we are told that Turkey will break its faith with the rest of the Arab world. (Dupont, p. 107).

Islamic prophecy tends to call this person the Imam Mahdi while Bible prophecy seems to identify him as the final King of the South.  But despite current comments from some in Turkey, the fact is that the Turks are fairly pragmatic and presuming they have reasons (like economic, military, and even possibly including apparitions claiming to be Mary) it is certainly within the realm of possibilities that they may assist the final King of the North overpower the final King of the South as is foretold in Daniel 11:40-43.

Some articles of possibly related interest may include:

Who is the King of the North? Is there one? Do biblical and Roman Catholic prophecies point to the same leader? Should he be followed? Who will be the King of the North discussed in Daniel 11? Is a nuclear attack prophesied to happen to the English-speaking peoples of the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand? When do the 1335 days, 1290 days, and 1260 days (the time, times, and half a time) of Daniel 12 begin? When does the Bible show that economic collapse will affect the United States?
Is There A Future King of the South? Some no longer believe there needs to be. Might Egypt, Islam, Iran, Arabs, or Ethiopia be involved? Might this King be called the Mahdi? What does the Bible say?
The Arab World In the Bible, History, and Prophecy The Bible discusses the origins of the Arab world and discusses the Middle East in prophecy. What is ahead for the Middle East and those who follow Islam? What about the Imam Mahdi?
Europa, the Beast, and Revelation Where did Europe get its name? What might Europe have to do with the Book of Revelation? What about “the Beast”? Is an emerging European power “the daughter of Babylon”? What is ahead for Europe?
Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Apparitions Do you know much about Mary? Are the apparitions real? What happened at Fatima? What might they mean for the rise of the ecumenical religion of Antichrist? Are Protestants moving towards Mary? How do the Orthodox view Mary? How might Mary view her adorers?
Catholic Prophecies: Do They Mirror, Highlight, or Contradict Biblical Prophecies? People of all faiths may be surprised to see what various Roman and Orthodox Catholic prophets have been predicting as many of their predictions will be looked to in the 21st century.

Rebuilt Gymnasium in Sardis

COGwriter

CG7-Denver has changed its prophetic understanding in many areas.  Notice what one-time CG7 president, A.N. Dugger wrote about the Beast and Revelation 13:18:

The Beast that he demands all people to worship has a number, which is the same number as “A MAN,” and that number is 666 (verse 18)…Beware, dear reader of BEAST WORSHIP. This is a message for these last days (Dugger AN. Daniel and Revelation. Mount Zion Reporter Press, ca. 1960s. Reprint by Giving & Sharing, 2000, p. 44)

But CG7 members no longer “Beware” as they have been relatively recently been taught that the mark of the Beast and the Beast himself is past:

John calls for wisdom and insight in calculating the number of the beast (13:18a)…Many attempts are made to identify this mysterious figure, but speculation about his identity is unimportant because enforcement of his mark is now history. Although the manifold blasphemies, heresies, and antichristian ideologies of the beast still exist in this apostate church, it no longer exercises the authority to enforce its edicts either through papal decree or through the agency of the state…

Many teach that the mark of the beast is yet to be enforced by a latter-day antichrist. That is impossible if John’s time allocations are taken literally. The time God allowed the saints to be persecuted and overcome was 1,260 days, or three-and-one-half years (12:6, 14; 13:5), equaling 1,260 years. This period indicated by John is identical with the time given to Daniel’s little horn to oppress the saints (Daniel 7:25)…That time is now past. For all practical purposes, the beasts of Revelation 13 have been rendered impotent, even if the dregs of their heresies and idolatries linger on in the world. (Coulter R. The Persecution of Christianity. Bible Advocate, December 2009)

But while A.N. Dugger had many prophetic misunderstandings, he was correct that “the Beast” is still future, that people need to beware of worship associated with him, and that they need to be concerned about his number.

Those in now CG7 need to read their Bibles and not rely on inaccurate positions that teach that certain future events have already occurred.

Jesus warned one COG (Sardis):

3 Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you (Revelation 3:3).

In the 21st century, CG7 seems more and more determined to minimize end time prophecy.  They are losing more and more of what they had received.  Officially CG7 seems to be teaching against following Jesus’ admonitions to “watch” (Matthew 24:42, 25:13; Mark 13:9, 33-37; Luke 21:36; Revelation 3:3).

Those in CG7-Denver seem to be being told not to watch as CG7 is currently claiming that certain future events have been fulfilled.  As even one of their former leaders taught, many have not been.  They need to heed Jesus’ words and not lose more of the truth that they had received.

For more information about CG7 and other subjects in this post, please prayerfully study the following:

Church of God, Seventh Day: History and Teachings Nearly all COG’s I am aware of trace their history through this group. Whaid Rose is the president of the largest CG7 group (Denver). Do you know much about them?
The Sardis Church Era was predominant circa 1600 A.D. to circa 1933 A.D. Discusses early history of the Seventh Day Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and COG-7th Day.
The Philadelphia Church Era was predominant circa 1933 A.D. to 1986 A.D. The old Radio Church of God and old Worldwide Church of God, now basically the Living Church of God.
The Laodicean Church Era has been predominant circa 1986 A.D. to present. These are non-Philadelphians who mainly descended from the old WCG.
Europa, the Beast, and the Book of Revelation discusses the largest church since the second/third century, which in a real sense is the eighth church mentioned in the Book of Revelation (it also endorses “eighth day” worship). What church would support the Beast?
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.
There is a Place of Safety for the Philadelphians. Why it May Be Petra This article discusses a biblical ‘place of safety’ and includes quotes from the Bible and Herbert W. Armstrong on this subject–thus, there is a biblically supported alternative to the rapture theory.
Persecutions by Church and State This article documents some that have occurred against those associated with the COGs and some prophesied to occur. Will those with the cross be the persecutors or the persecuted–this article has the shocking answer.
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.

Rebuilt Gymnasium in Sardis

COGwriter

In an article in the July-August 2010 edition of CG7-Denver’s Bible Advocate titled Anabaptist Who? Calvin Burrell reported:

One piece of faith-practice we have in common with Baptist friends is liturgy, our public worship style with its centrality of the spoken word. This traces, in part, to the fact that CoG7 and SDA churches share some common heritage with many Baptists…

Anabaptist was the tag given those who insisted on re-baptizing (by immersion) believers who  were previously just sprinkled…

The first Anabaptists were radical in their commitment to basic Christian faith and discipleship, distinct yet diverse in their secondary views, and mostly peacemakers toward their adversaries. As carriers of several pieces of Anabaptist tradition, we do well to investigate and imitate more of that heritage…

While the above article did mention that the Anabaptists differed from the Protestant Reformers, it failed to mention most of the doctrinal differences.

There were some Sabbath-keeping “Anabaptists” and some of them were apparently part of the true Church of God.  The late John Ogwyn reported:

By the end of the 1500s, congregations that the world labeled “Sabbatarian Anabaptists” had emerged from remnants of the Waldensians and were growing in Central Europe, Germany and England. They were termed Sabbatarian because they taught and observed the seventh-day Sabbath. They were called Anabaptists, meaning “re-baptizers,” because they refused to accept as Christians those who had merely been sprinkled as babies. They taught that baptism was only for adults who had come to believe the Gospel and had repented of their sins (cf. Acts 2:38) (Ogwyn, J. God’s Church Through the Ages. LCG Booklet. 2003).

It may be of interest to note that the Anabaptists were condemned by the Lutherans because they did not support infant baptism, taught one could reject salvation, taught that Christians should not be soldiers, taught that there would be an end to punishments, and that Jesus would rule with His people on the earth:

Article IX: Of Baptism. Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace. They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children…

Article XII:…They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost…

Article XVI: Of Civil Affairs. Of Civil Affairs they teach that lawful civil ordinances are good works of God, and that it is right for Christians to bear civil office, to sit as judges, to judge matters by the Imperial and other existing laws, to award just punishments, to engage in just wars, to serve as soldiers, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to make oath when required by the magistrates, to marry a wife, to be given in marriage. They condemn the Anabaptists who forbid these civil offices to Christians.

Article XVII: Of Christ’s Return to Judgment. Also they teach that at the Consummation of the World Christ will appear for judgment and will raise up all the dead; He will give to the godly and elect eternal life and everlasting joys, but ungodly men and the devils He will condemn to be tormented without end. They condemn the Anabaptists, who think that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned men and devils. They condemn also others who are now spreading certain Jewish opinions, that before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall take possession of the kingdom of the world, the ungodly being everywhere suppressed. (The Confession of Faith: Which Was Submitted to His Imperial Majesty Charles V. At the Diet of Augsburg in the Year 1530. by Philip Melanchthon, 1497-1560. Translated by F. Bente and W. H. T. Dau. Published in: Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Ev. Lutheran Church. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, pp. 37-95.)

Furthermore, Anabaptists were also denounced by other 16th century Protestant leaders such as Jacob Würben of Biel because they stated that they got certain doctrines from the Book of Revelation (Guggisberg HR.  Jabob Würben of Biel: A thoughtful admonisher against Ludwig Hätzer and the Anabaptists.  Mennonite Quarterly Review, VOl. XLVI, July 1972, pp. 239-255). The teachings of the Book of Revelation were NOT popular with the early Protestant Reformers and were often condemned by them (for Martin Luther’s view of the Apocalypse, please see the article Sola Scriptura or Prima Luther? What Did Martin Luther Really Believe About the Bible?).

In the sixteenth century, “Anabaptists” taught Millenarianism and were condemned by Roman Catholics for that belief (Birch D. Trial Tribulation & Triumph. Queenship Publishing, Goleta (CA), 1996, p. lvii).

Carefully look at this admission from the Protestant scholar and theologian H. Brown:

Although classical theology is certainly not without its problems, historically it is almost always the case that the appeal to the Bible alone…leads to the reemergence of ancient heresies…The Reformation began with the slogan “To the sources!” and sought to deal a fatal blow to the place of church tradition in shaping life and faith…Despite their efforts not to be influenced by the authority of tradition, each of the major Reformation churches found itself borrowing from the past and building up a traditionalism of its own…when the Anabaptists and other radicals discovered Scripture to be teaching things the Lutherans found detestable, Lutherans learned the usefulness of tradition…(Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 335,350-351).

While tradition has some value, it should never supersede scripture.

It should be noted that the above is not limited to one Protestant scholar, even Martin Luther truly did not believe in rallying cry sola scriptura (an article of related interest may be Sola Scriptura or Prima Luther? What Did Martin Luther Really Believe About the Bible?).

To pursue these subjects further, please prayerfully study the following:

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?
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? Statements from him changing and/or discounting 18 books of the Bible are included. Do you really want to know the truth?
Church of God, Seventh Day: History and Teachings Nearly all COG’s I am aware of trace their history through this group. Whaid Rose is the president of the largest CG7 group (Denver). Do you know much about them?
The Churches of Revelation 2 & 3 from 31 A.D. to present: information on all of the seven churches of Revelation 2 & 3.  CG7 is one of them.
The Sardis Church Era was predominant circa 1600 A.D. to circa 1933 A.D. Discusses early history of the Seventh Day Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and COG-7th Day.
The Philadelphia Church Era was predominant circa 1933 A.D. to 1986 A.D. The old Radio Church of God and old Worldwide Church of God, now basically the Living Church of God.
There are Many COGs: Why Support the Living Church of God? This is an article for those who wish to more easily sort out the different COGs. It really should be a MUST READ for current and former WCG/GCI members or any interested in supporting the faithful church. It also explains a lot of what the COGs are all about.

Orthodox Icon Shop

COGwriter

The oldest claimed portraits of the Apostles Peter, Paul, Andrew, and John were just publicly announced:

Oldest portraits of Christ’s apostles found

Reuters - June 23, 2010

Archaeologists and art restorers using new laser technology have discovered what they believe are the oldest paintings of the faces of Jesus Christ’s apostles.

The images in a branch of the catacombs of St Tecla near St Paul’s Basilica, just outside the walls of ancient Rome, were painted at the end of the 4th century or the start of the 5th century.

Archaeologists believe these images may have been among those that most influenced later artists’ depictions of the faces of Christ’s most important early followers.

“These are the first images that we know of the faces of these four apostles,” said Professor Fabrizio Bisconti, the head of archaeology for Rome’s numerous catacombs, which are owned and maintained by the Vatican…

The full-face icons include visages of St Peter, St Andrew, and St John, who were among Jesus’ original 12 apostles, and St Paul, who became an apostle after Christ’s death.

The paintings have the same characteristics as later images, such as St Paul’s rugged, wrinkled and elongated forehead, balding head and pointy beard, indicating they may have been the ones which set the standard.  http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/23/2934293.htm?section=justin

Now, as the above shows, there simply were not early (first or second century) portraits of of these apostles.  Hence, whoever made their portraits did not see those apostles while they were alive nor spoke to anyone who could have seen what they actually looked like.

Despite this fact, notice the following from Eastern Orthodox scholar Leonid Ouspensky:

The Orthodox church has never accepted the paintings of icons according to the imagination of the artist or from a living model, which would signify a conscious and total break from the prototype.  The name which the icon bears would then no longer correspond to the person represented, and this would be a flagrant lie which the church could not tolerate…The ancient iconographers knew the faces of the saints as well as they knew those of their close relatives.  They painted them from memory or by using a sketch of portrait…all kinds of accounts, and particularly sketches…were preserved on icons. (Ouspensky L.  Theology of the Icons.  Translated by Anthony Gythiel and Elizabth Meyendorf, 1992. As cited in Clendenin, p. 48)

But theological scholar Daniel Clendenin commented that at least part of the above was false:

This general rule has frequently been broken or abused in the past few centuries. (Clendenin D.B. ed. Eastern Orthodox Theology, 2nd ed. Baker Academic, 2003, p. 48)

The Orthodox never did have original sketches/portraits of Jesus, the original apostles, early martyrs, etc.  Hence, based upon Orthodox logic, since the iconographers did not actually know what the early saints really looked like, then all the icons of them are a lie.  And the truth is that they are lies since the earliest “portraits” of the Apostles seem to date from no earlier than the third or fourth centuries.

For what it is worth, I have personally visited several of the sites (catacombs in Rome, caves in Cappadocia, etc. that allegedly have the earliest “Christian” art and most of these images date from possibly the third, but mainly the fourth or later centuries (and the few I have seen in the catacombs that may have been from the second century are quite limited and do not look like the icons that I have seen in modern Orthodox churches–they mainly are supposed to be angels).

Furthermore, Orthodox priest and scholar Laurent Cleenewerck has admitted:

…one will not find in the early Church any clear exposition of the current Eastern Orthodox theology of icons.  (Cleenewerck L. His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism Between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches (An Orthodox Perspective). Euclid University Consortium Press, Washington (DC), 2007, p. 43)

Roman Catholic scholar A. Fortescue wrote:

Long before the outbreak in the eighth century there were isolated cases of persons who feared the ever-growing cult of images and saw in it danger of a return to the old idolatry. We need hardly quote in this connection the invectives of the Apostolic Fathers against idols (Athenagoras “Legatio Pro Christ.”, xv-xvii; Theophilus, “Ad Autolycum” II; Minucius Felix, “Octavius”, xxvii; Arnobius, “Disp. adv. Gentes”; Tertullian, “De Idololatria”, I; Cyprian, “De idolorum vanitate”), in which they denounce not only the worship but even the manufacture and possession of such images. These texts all regard idols, that is, images made to be adored. (Fortescue A. Transcribed by Tomas Hancil. Veneration of Images. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York)

The fact that even Catholic scholars refer to it as “the ever-growing cult of images” should tell everyone that the Greco-Roman chruches obviously CHANGED on this particular point of doctrine and this was not an original practice of the apostles or their true successors.

Notice the following from the historian P. Carus:

There were Christians at the end of the third century who were in possession of pictures of Christ, but the Church fathers looked with scorn upon this practice. Eusebius plainly says to the Empress Helena that “such images are forbidden by the Jewish law and should not be found in churches.” He continues: “Some poor woman brought me two painted figures like philosophers, and ventured to say that they represented Paul and the Saviour—I do not know on what ground. But to save her and others from offence. I took them from her and kept them by me, not thinking it right, in any case, that she should exhibit them further, that we may not seem idolaters to carry our God about with us. (Carus P. The Open court, Volume 22. The Open Court Pub. Co., 1908. Original from Harvard University, Digitized Mar 14, 2008, pp. 663-664)

So even having certain pictures appear in perhaps the third century was worrisome to church leaders such as Eusebius as late as the fourth century.

Despite this, the local  Saint Barbara Orthodox Church (Santa Barbara, California) sponsors a “Greek festival” each summer here where selling icons are part of the activities.  The fact that Greco-Roman church leaders upon into the fourth (and sometimes later) century were normally opposed to them has not stopped this practice as it is still flourishing, even though the earliest images of the most important apostles (at least in the Greco-Roman historical sense) were not made until the fourth century should give all who associate with icons a reason to consider that their development and acceptance was a major change for the churches that accepted them.

Icons and portraits of the apostles were not part of the original Christian church.

For additional information, please check out the following:

What Did the Early Church Teach About Idols and Icons? Did Catholic and Orthodox “saints” endorse or condemn idols and icons for Christians?
Nail from Knights Templar claimed to date from time of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion Is it true?  Does it matter?  If not, what does?
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

Some have alleged that “sacred names” in Hebrew must be used for deity.  Was this the practice of the early Christians?  Here is some of what COGaIC’s Peter Nathan reported yesterday:

Should we use the Greek name Jesus to refer to the Son of God?

A feature of the 20th century has been the rise of a movement known as the Sacred Name Movement (SNM). Adherents believe that the Hebrew divine names are the essential names of God, and that those names should be used and not translated into other languages. For instance, the English name Jesus is considered a pagan name that should only be used in its Hebrew form of Joshua or more correctly Yehoshua.

The past century has seen a bonanza of early texts become available through archaeology. Today we have the benefit of being able to read and analyze texts that were written before and shortly after the time of Jesus Christ. This provides us with a new window into this idea. What do these texts tell us about the question of sacred names?

P52 is a fragment of papyrus that records part of John 18 and 19, while P66 contains most of the Gospel of John. P52 is considered the oldest New Testament text known presently, but both manuscripts have been reliably dated to the early part of the 2nd century. The Gospel of John was not written until late in the first century, so P52 and P66 are very early copies–within 50 years of the original. They show that the Greek name ‘Jesus’ was being used and treated with reverence…

That the likes of P52 and P66 are valid texts to consider is made clear by the way in which they continue to abbreviate the names of the Father, God and Jesus Christ. They are normally reduced to two or three letters in which the last letter changes according to the grammatical use–see above–and the name is highlighted with a line over the abbreviation. Jesus is abbreviated as Ιη-, (transliterated into English as Je- or Ye-).  Christ is abbreviated as Χρ- (literally Chr-). The word God is recorded as Θ- while Father is shown as Πρ- and Lord as Κ-. These abbreviations clearly derive from the Greek terms and not the Hebrew…

This is clear documentary indication that the early followers of Jesus Christ did not place any importance on the Hebrew names as the Sacred Name Movement would claim, but translated the names into the language that was being used for the proclamation of the Gospel and the instruction of the Church.

We can therefore conclude that the earliest available texts of New Testament writings deny the validity of the sacred name concept.

The reality is that the so-called “sacred name movement” has always tended to ignore certain biblical and other manuscripts to support its position.  And that is what I originally concluded when I first looked into this in the 1970s.

And the few times I have looked into it since, I have come to similar conclusions.

For more information on this subject, please check out the following:

Why the Names Jesus and Christ in English? Was the New Testament Written in Hebrew or Greek? Various groups believe that the name Jesus should not be used, but instead other pronunciations and spellings. This is an article, which appeared in the The Living Church News by the late evangelist John Ogwyn, addresses this, as well as if the New Testament was written in Hebrew or Greek.
God’s Names and the Jewish Reading Tradition This article which appeared in the The Living Church News by John Wheeler, addresses this, as well as a few other Hebrew and Greek points.

An engraving allegedly of Irenaeus, in Gaul (now Lyons, France)

COGwriter

Although many act like semi-Arianism simply was something that arose in the 4th century, the truth is that all true Christians and many who had associated with them, also had a bintiarian or semi-Arian view of the Godhead.

Since the early Church was “binitarian”, when did trinitarianism really become predominant?

After two emperor-enforced “Church Councils” in the fourth century.

Although most Greco-Romans point to Nicea as a trinitarian council, the vast majority of Greco-Roman bishops who attended were NOT trinitarian.

According to historical accounts, the attendees at this council were split into three factions[i].  They were:

1) Arians – Supporters of the position of Dr. Arius, about 10% of the attendees.

2) In-Betweens – Those who held a position between the Arians and trinitarians, about 75% of the attendees. Eusebius, a Semi-Arian, was the main spokesperson for them.

3) Trinitarians – Those who supported the views of Athanasius, about 15% of the attendees.

The historians Henry Bettenson and/or Chris Mauder admit (which of the two that wrote the following is not clear):

The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority, and they were…disliked by many who were not adherents of Arius.[ii]

Notice that even within the Catholic/Orthodox Council, the majority of attending bishops did not hold to the trinitarian view before the Council.

No matter what one may feel about the truthfulness of the trinity, how can any say that the acceptance of this doctrine is necessary for Christians?  It was not the belief of the majority of even Greco-Roman church leaders in the early fourth century.

There is a tradition that claims that “Saint” Nicholas, Bishop of Myra (near Constantinople, to the south), the man now known as “Santa Claus”, attended the Council of Nicea and assaulted Arius by hitting him in the face.[iii] Not a particularly scriptural way for a church leader to communicate.

Although, Eusebius attended and led the biggest group in Nicea, his side did not win.

After an impassioned speech by Athanasius, Emperor Constantine arose. And since he was the Emperor, apparently dressed as a golden angel, his standing was noticed by the bulk of the attendees who correctly interpreted the Emperor as now supporting Athanasius[iv].   Because of Athanasius’ speech and the Emperor’s approval, the bulk of the attendees decided to come up with a statement on the Godhead that the Arians could not support.  They did not come up with one to totally alienate the Semi-Arians, but many were upset by it.

This, to a degree, solved the Emperor’s immediate concern about unity of his version of Christianity, and pretty much drove the Arians out.

Theological writer Karen Armstrong (who has no association with a COG) similarly wrote about Nicea:

Most who the bishops would have espoused views midway between Athanasius  and Arius…Under pressure from the emperor, however, all the bishops save two brave Arian supporters signed the creed for the sake of peace; but afterward they continued teaching as before.[v]

It should be noted that “the creed” adopted was not clearly and completely trinitarian, which may be why many signed it.

According to Eusebius, the Emperor himself specifically decided what the orthodox belief would be:

On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no room for contradiction appeared; but our most pious Emperor, before any one else, testified that it comprised most orthodox statements. He confessed moreover that such were his own sentiments, and he advised all present to agree to it, and to subscribe its articles and to assent to them, with the insertion of the single word, One-in-essence, which moreover he interpreted as not in the sense of the affections of bodies, nor as if the Son subsisted from the Father in the way of division, or any severance; for that the immaterial, and intellectual, and incorporeal nature could not be the subject of any corporeal affection, but that it became us to conceive of such things in a divine and ineffable manner. And such were the theological remarks of our most wise and most religious Emperor.[vi]

Yet, this did not resolve the matter.  The 19^th century A.H. Hore theologian correctly observed:

There is no reason for believing that at any time of his life Constantine’s religious convictions disposed him to embrace orthodoxy. He had favoured Christianity because it was congenial to his reason…

His rude intellect could never really grasp the points at issue between the Orthodox and the Arians; whether the Son was of the same essence (óμοούαιος) or only of like essence (óμοιούαιος) with the Father was to him one and the same thing. But it was the very question which he had summoned the Council of Nice to decide; and having called that Council, and himself having approved the óμοιούαιον…

The result was that instead of making peace he added to the divisions of the Church, and the Council of Nice, so far from ending, was only the commencement of a contest which lasted more than half a century, during which Arians and Semi-Arians applied themselves to the rejection of the word oμooύαιον.[vii]

There Were Many Semi-Arians

Despite the fact that trinitarians consider Nicea to have been a trinitarian council, even after Constantine’s declaration about God and homoousios, most who professed Christ in Asia Minor the East and were part of the Greco-Roman alliance into the late 4^th century held a binitarian, often called a semi-Arian, view of the Godhead.  And while many writers act like the semi-Arian situation arose in the 4^th century, up until the fourth century, the majority of those who professed Christ held some type of semi-Arian/binitarian view of the Godhead

Notice that even The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that most were not trinitarians:

Semiarians and Semiarianism A name frequently given to the conservative majority in the East in the fourth century…[viii]

Towards the middle of the fourth century, Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople, and, after him a number of Semi-Arians, while apparently admitting the Divinity of the Word, denied that of the Holy Ghost.[ix]

The expression “conservative majority in the East” clearly demonstrates that most of the Greco-Romans in Asia Minor were NOT trinitarians.  The fact that the then Patriarch of Constantinople denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit should be further proof to any of the Orthodox that they have truly changed their faith from his fourth century position.

Perhaps it should also be noted that Socrates Scholasticus reported that Macedonius had long been a deacon before his election as Bishop of Constantinople, that he was aged, and that he was elected by the Arians[x] (sometimes “semi-Arians” are inaccurately referred to as Arians in certain Greco-Roman writings).  Thus, the “semi-Arian” view should not be considered as something that simply happened in the fourth century.  Instead, semiarianism was a teaching that ended up being replaced by the Greco-Roman trinity in the latter part of that century.  Furthermore, even the official website of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople admits that the arians/semi-semiarians ruled that “see” for at least “forty years” in the fourth century.[xi] However, it should be understood that there does not appear to be evidence that Constantinople had any “bishops” prior to the fourth century who were actually trinitarian.  The reality is that most of the Eastern Orthodox (until the latter half of the 4^th century), had held some type of semi-Arian/binitarian view of the Godhead.

Although Catholic writers have had many definitions of semi-Arians (many of which disagree with the Church of God position), one edited view that somewhat defines the binitarian view taken in this text would possibly be this one from Epiphanius in the mid-4th Century:

Semi-Arians…hold the truly orthodox view of the Son, that he was forever with the Father…But all of these blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and do not count him in the Godhead with the Father and the Son.[xii]

The above description, which was apparently held in the 4^th century by many of the Orthodox in Asia Minor, is consistent with what we in the Living Church of God still teach.  Of course, teaching the truth about the Holy Spirit is not blasphemy.

Although it took two emperor enforced councils to come up with the trinity, between the first (Nicea of 325 A.D.) and the second (Constantinople of 381 A.D.) councils, there were actually other meetings (synods and councils) that took a Semi-Arian position.  Notice what The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches:

The second Formula of Sirmium (357) stated the doctrine of the Anomoeans, or extreme Arians. Against this the Semi-Arian bishops, assembled at Ancyra, the episcopal city of their leader Basilius, issued a counter formula, asserting that the Son is in all things like the Father, afterwards approved by the Third Synod of Sirmium (358). This formula, though silent on the term “homousios“, consecrated by the Council of Nicaea, was signed by a few orthodox bishops, and probably by Pope Liberius, being, in fact, capable of an orthodox interpretation. The Emperor Constantius cherished at that time the hope of restoring peace between the orthodox and the Semi-Arians by convoking a general council…

The Council of Rimini was opened early in July, 359, with over four hundred bishops. About eighty Semi-Arians, including Ursacius, Germinius, and Auxentius, withdrew from the orthodox bishops, the most eminent of whom was Restitutus of Carthage; Liberius, Eusebius, Dionysius, and others were still in exile. The two parties sent separate deputations to the emperor, the orthodox asserting clearly their firm attachment to the faith of Nicaea, while the Arian minority adhered to the imperial formula. But the inexperienced representatives of the orthodox majority allowed themselves to be deceived, and not only entered into communion with the heretical delegates, but even subscribed, at, Nice in Thrace, a formula to the effect merely that the Son is like the Father according to the Scriptures (the words “in all things” being omitted). On their return to Rimini, they were met with the unanimous protests of their colleagues. But the threats of the consul Taurus, the remonstrances of the Semi-Arians against hindering peace between East and West for a word not contained in Scripture, their privations and their homesickness–all combined to weaken the constancy of the orthodox bishops.[xiii]

So, at a council 359, the majority apparently accepted certain semi-Arian concepts.  That does not mean that they were deceived.  Perhaps it means that most did in fact accept some of the truths that some of the semi-Arians had.

The Council of Rimini was also called the Council of Ariminum.  Notice what Sozomen reported about it:

The partisans of Acacius remained some time at Constantinople, and invited thither several bishops of Bithynia, among whom were Maris, bishop of Chalcedon, and Ulfilas, bishop of the Goths. These prelates having assembled together, in number about fifty, they confirmed the formulary read at the council of Ariminum, adding this provision, that the terms “substance” and “hypostasis” should never again be used in reference to God. They also declared that all other formularies set forth in times past, as likewise those that might be compiled at any future period, should be condemned.[xiv]

Socrates Scholasticus reported the following as part of the declaration of that Council:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty…And in…Christ our Lord and God…

But since the term ούσία, substance or essence which was used by the fathers in a very simple and intelligible sense, but not being understood by the people, has been a cause of offense, we have thought proper to reject it, as it is not contained even in the sacred writings; and that no mention of it should be made in future, inasmuch as the holy Scriptures have nowhere mentioned the substance of the Father and of the Son. Nor ought the “subsistence” of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit to be even named. But we affirm that the Son is like the Father, in such a manner as the sacred Scriptures declare and teach.[xv]

The same Council also taught this about the Holy Spirit:

We believe also in the Holy Spirit…as the Comforter; according to how it is written, the Spirit of truth.[xvi]

So while semi-Arians believe that there is a Holy Spirit, they tend to limit their beliefs to what the Bible says about it.  They do not declare it to be the third co-equal person of a non-biblical Greco-Roman trinity.

In 359, there was also a semi-Arian council of Seleucia (359) attended by Greco-Roman church leaders[xvii]. And “in 335, the semi-Arian bishops, returning from the council of Tyre” consecrated a basilica[xviii].

The Catholic priest Kramer reported:

In the Council of Rimini, 359 A.D…nearly all bishops present, 400 in number… {decided} to sign a semi-Arian creed.”[xix]

So, 400 bishops certainly is many of them.

Here is another important semi-Arian bishop according to The Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem Bishop of Jerusalem and Doctor of the Church, born about 315; died probably 18 March, 386… He appeared at the Council of Seleucia in 359, in which the Semi-Arian party was triumphant… He belonged to the Semi-Arian, or Homoean party, and is content to declare that the Son is “in all things like the Father”.[xx]

John (Cardinal) Newman observed:

Cyril of Jerusalem, and Eusebius of Samosata, are both Saints in the Roman Calendar, though connected in history with the Semi-Arian party.[xxi]

If someone could be a Greco-Roman “saint” and “Doctor of the Church” and be semi-Arian in the 4^th century, then it should be illogical for any to conclude that trinitarianism was a “foundational belief” of the even the Greco-Roman churches prior to the fourth century.  And while some have disputed Cyril’s semi-Arian credentials, other fourth century bishops of Jerusalem such as Maximus II and Hilarius for some time held semi-Arian views.[xxii] And while the Orthodox do not always count Hilarius, they do count Maximus II and Cyril as successors in Jerusalem.

Most of the bishops of Antioch in the 4^th century were either Arian or semi-Arian until the Council of Constantinople.[xxiii] Gregory of Cappadocia was semi-Arian, and although many of the Orthodox no longer count him as legitimate successor, he was appointed, and ruled, as the Bishop of Alexandria.[xxiv]

And those that do not accept Gregory (and even those that do), normally accept that Athanasius was a legitimate successor, even though Athanasius taught his opponents “ought to be held in universal hatred”.[xxv] This is statement should disqualify Athanius as being a real Christian leader as he was clearly being unfaithful to what Jesus taught about opponents (Matthew 5:44).

One group of semi-Arians was known as the Pneumatomachi.  They were  recognized by the pope around that time.  Notice the following:

Pneumatomachi…They denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost…The majority of this sect were clearly orthodox on the Consubstantiality of the Son; they had sent a deputation from the Semi-Arian council of Lampsacus (364 A.D.) to Pope Liberius, who after some hesitation acknowledged the soundness of their faith; but with regard to the Third Person, both pope and bishops were satisfied with the phrase: “We believe in the Holy Ghost.”[xxvi]

Notice that “Pope” Liberius accepted this teaching as sound that the Holy Spirit was not a divine person.

The historian Sozomen reported:

Liberius…Constantius urged him, in the presence of the deputies of the Eastern bishops, and of the other priests who were at the camp, to confess that the Son is not of the same substance as the Father. He was instigated to this measure by Basil, Eustathius, and Eusebius, who possessed great influence over him. They had formed a compilation, in one document, of the decrees against Paul of Samosata, and Photinus, bishop of Sirmium; to which they subjoined a formulary of faith drawn up at Antioch at the consecration of the church, as if certain persons had, under the pretext of the term consubstantial, attempted to establish a heresy of their own. Liberius, Athanasius, Alexander, Severianus, and Crescens, a priest of Africa, were induced to assent to this document, as were likewise Ursacius, Germanius, bishop of Sirmium, Valens, bishop of Mursa, and as many of the Eastern bishops as were present.[xxvii]

So, apparently even Athanasius “compromised” his beliefs for a time.

Although many Catholics indicate that Liberius was not really a semi-Arian (and claim that he later rejected the semi-Arian position), they tend to act like Liberius agreed to semi-Arian positions because of cowardice.   The Catholic Encyclopedia claims:

Liberius, it is alleged, subscribed an Arian or Semi-Arian creed drawn up by the Council of Sirmium and anathematized St. Athanasius, the great champion of Nicaea, as a heretic. But even if this were an accurate statement of historical fact, it is a very inadequate statement. The all-important circumstance should be added that the pope so acted under pressure of a very cruel coercion…[xxviii]

Liberius…signed a creed, in tone Semi-Arian (compiled chiefly from one of Sirmium), renounced Athanasius…[xxix]

The above is important for two reasons.  The first is that Liberius supported some form of semiarianism.  And the second is that by condemning Athanasius, the trinitarian champion, Liberius is giving indirect approval to the legitimacy of non-trinitarian bishops of Alexandria who held that title when Athanasius was still alive.

It is also recorded from the Catholic writer A.Lopes:

Liberius (352-366)…the signing of a document that contained a formulation very close to the Arian thesis…he was criticized by many (Athanasius, Hilary of Poiters, Jerome) who saw this submission as a weakness due to fear of death.[xxx]

The Catholic Saint Jerome, while discussing Arian and anti-Arian writings wrote:

Fortunatianus,  an African by birth, bishop of Aquilia during the reign of Constantius, composed brief Commentaries on the gospels arranged by chapters, written in a rustic style, and is held in detestation because, when Liberius bishop of Rome was driven into exile for the faith, he was induced by the urgency of Fortunatianus to subscribe to heresy.[xxxi]

So, it seems that while later Catholics tended to believe that Liberius was pressured to appear to be semi-Arian from imperial forces, that perhaps he was simply persuaded, or perhaps he was always semi-Arian.

But the fact is that at least one bishop of Rome (Liberius), several bishops of Constantinople (including Macedonius and Eudoxius), two-three bishops of Jerusalem, more than one in Antioch (including Eudoxius[xxxii]), many bishops in Egypt[xxxiii], Gregory of Cappadocia/Alexandria (possibly also Peter II of Alexandria reportedly through an endorsement of Gregory[xxxiv]), and many other 4^th century Greco-Roman bishops were still, at least partially, semi-Arian. This represents all of five so-called “apostolic sees”.   If the trinity is so fundamental to Christianity, how could any of these locations have had true “apostolic succession”?

Furthermore, was Liberius infallible when he agreed to a position that is diametrically opposed to current Greco-Roman doctrine?

Was he the “successor” to the Apostle Peter and the “vicar of Christ” when he did that?

If not, then there was no Roman apostolic succession for at least 14 years in the 4^th century.

If so, how could Christ’s “vicar” (and many other so-called successors to the apostles) accept such a contrary position to current Greco-Roman dogma?

Holy Spirit Declared a Person in Council of Constantine in 381

Timothy Ware, an Eastern Orthodox bishop, also now called the Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia, confirmed the trinity teaching was finally adopted in the late fourth century:

…the councils defined once and for all the Church’s teaching upon the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith — the Trinity and the Incarnation. All Christians agree in regarding these things as ‘mysteries’ which lie beyond human understanding and language…the first two, held in the fourth century…formulated the doctrine of the Trinity…The work of Nicea was taken up by the second Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 381. This council expanded and adapted the Nicene Creed, developing in particular that teaching upon the Holy Spirit, whom it affirmed to be God even as the Father and the Son are God…It was the supreme achievement of St. Athanasius of Alexandria to draw out the full implications of the key word in the Nicene Creed: homoousios, one in essence or substance, consubstantial. Complementary to his work was that of the three Cappadocian Fathers, Saints…(died 394). While Athanasius emphasized the unity of God — Father and Son are one in essence (ousia) – the Cappadocians stressed God’s threeness: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons (hypostasis).[xxxv]

The Greco-Romans admit many in the Greco-Roman confederation were not trinitarian after Nicea and that others later had to stress three persons.  And the idea of God being made up of three hypostasis came from the second century heretic named Valentinus. Thus, any who state that the trinity was a central Christian belief prior to the end of the fourth century are in clear historical error.  The fact that it had to be more precisely formulated by three in Cappadocia in the late 4^th century clearly helps demonstrate that it was not an originally held doctrine.

A Protestant scholar admitted:

The attempt to develop an understanding of the Holy Spirit consistent with the trinitarian passages…came to fruition at Constantinople in 381…[xxxvi]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church admits:

245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was announced by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381).[xxxvii]

The Catholic Encyclopedia also admits that the doctrine of the trinity evolved through tradition:

Holy Ghost The doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning the Holy Ghost forms an integral part of her teaching on the mystery of the Holy Trinity …

In the New Testament the word spirit and, perhaps, even the expression spirit of God signify at times the soul or man himself, inasmuch as he is under the influence of God and aspires to things above; more frequently, especially in St. Paul, they signify God acting in man…

Tradition brings more clearly before us the various stages of the evolution of this doctrine… But we must come down towards the year 360 to find the doctrine on the Holy Ghost explained both fully and clearly. It is St. Athanasius who does so in his “Letters to Serapion” (P.G., XXVI, col. 525 sq.)… A little later, St. Basil, Didymus of Alexandria, St. Epiphanius, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory of Nyssa took up the same thesis ex professo, supporting it for the most part with the same proofs. All these writings had prepared the way for the Council of Constantinople which, in 381, condemned the Pneumatomachians and solemnly proclaimed the true doctrine…[xxxviii]

The Catholic Encyclopedia also admits that the Old Testament did not teach that the Spirit of the Lord was a person:

For nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person. Mention is often made of the Spirit of the Lord, but there is nothing to show that the Spirit was viewed as distinct from Jahweh Himself. The term is always employed to signify God considered in His working, whether in the universe or in the soul of man. The matter seems to be correctly summed up by Epiphanius, when he says: “The One Godhead is above all declared by Moses, and the twofold personality (of Father and Son) is strenuously asserted by the Prophets…” (”Haer.”, lxxiv).[xxxix]

So how did uniformity and the acceptance of the trinity occur?

It came through an Imperial decree.

Notice the following from one of Emperor Theodosius’ edicts:

…let us believe in the one deity of the father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since in out judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that the shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of divine condemnation an the second the punishment of out authority, in accordance with the will of heaven shall decide to inflict…[xl]

So according to a Roman Emperor, the title “Catholic Christian” is supposed to be for those who believe in the trinity and other Greco-Roman doctrines.  Thus, this edict made all who would compromise do so for fear of losing their positions and influence with the Greco-Roman church.

---

[i] Feldmeth N.  Early Christianity.  CD Lecture.  Fuller Theological Seminary.

[ii] Bettenson, Documents of the Church, p. 45

[iii] Butler A, Thurston H, Attwater D. Butler’s lives of the saints, Volume 4. 2nd edition,    Christian Classics. 1956.

Original from the University of Virginia, Digitized Jul 29, 2008, p. 504

[iv] Feldmeth N.  Early Christianity.  CD Lecture.  Fuller Theological Seminary

[v] Armstrong K. Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths. Ballantine, 1997, p. 178

[vi] Eusebius. Letter on the Council of Nicaea. Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the people of his Diocese

[vii] Hore AH.  Eighteen centuries of the Orthodox church.  J. Parker and co., 1899. Original from Harvard University.Digitized, May 16, 2006, pp. 132-133

[viii] Chapman J. Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter. Semiarians and Semiarianism. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII. Published 1912. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York, pp. 693-694

[ix] Forget J. Transcribed by W.S. French, Jr. Holy Ghost. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

[x] Socrates Scholasticus, Book II, Chapter 6

[xi] Gregory I of Nazianzen 379-381. © 2010 The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.  http://www.patriarchate.org/patriarchate/former-patriarchs/gregory-i-of-nazianzen viewed 04/17/10

[xii] Epiphanius. Section VI, Verses 1,1 and 1,3. pp.471-472

[xiii] Benigni, Umberto. “Council of Rimini.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 11 Jul. 2008 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13057b.htm>

[xiv] Sozomen, Book IV, Chapter 24

[xv] Socrates Scholasticus, Book II, Chapter 41, pp. 221,222

[xvi] Ibid, p. 221

[xvii] Bagatti, The Church from the Gentiles in Palestine, p.56

[xviii] Bagatti, The Church from the Gentiles in Palestine, p.59

[xix] Kramer H.B. L. The Book of Destiny. Nihil Obstat: J.S. Considine, O.P., Censor Deputatus. Imprimatur: +Joseph M. Mueller, Bishop of Sioux City, Iowa, January 26, 1956. Reprint TAN Books, Rockford (IL), p. 165

[xx] Chapman, John. St. Cyril of Jerusalem. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 3 Feb. 2010 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04595b.htm>

[xxi] Newman JH. Arians of the fourth century, 7^th ed. p. 302

[xxii] Deriev A. Translation by Denis Deriev.  The History of the Church of Jerusalem from

Its Beginnings until the Eleventh Century.  http://morewhoiswho.tripod.com/history.html viewed 04/19/10

[xxiii] Patriarchs of Antioch. Chronological List.  Syriac Orthodox Resources. http://sor.cua.edu/Patriarchate/PatriarchsChronList.html viewed 04/12/10. The preceding identified seven “successors” as Arian, but failed to mention that several others were semi-Arian.

[xxiv] Gibbon, Rise and Fall, p. 496

[xxv] Jones W. The history of the Christian church: from the birth of Christ to the eighteenth century, including the very interesting account of the Waldenses and Albigenses, Volume 1, 3^rd edition. R.W. Pomeroy, 1832. Original from the University of Wisconsin – Madison. Digitized, Mar 13, 2008, p. 177

[xxvi] Arendzen, John. “Pneumatomachi.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 11 Jul. 2008 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12174a.htm>

[xxvii] Sozomen.  Translated by Chester D. Hartranft.  Ecclesiastical History (Book IV), Chapter 15. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 2. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26024.htm>

[xxviii] Toner, Patrick. “Infallibility.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 11 Jul. 2008 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm>

[xxix] Barry, William. “Arianism.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 18 Apr. 2010 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm>.)

[xxx] Lopes, The Popes, p. 12

[xxxi] Jerome. De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men), Chapter 97

[xxxii] Mason J. A history of the Holy Eastern church…Volume 5 of A History of the Holy Eastern Church. J. Masters, 1873. Original from the University of Michigan, Digitized, Sep 21, 2007,  p. 101

[xxxiii] Newman JH. Arians of the fourth century, 7^th ed. p. 345

[xxxiv] Ibid, pp. 385-386

[xxxv] Ware T. The Orthodox Church. Penguin Books, London, 1997, pp. 20-23

[xxxvi] Brown, Heresies, p. 140

[xxxvii] Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 72

[xxxviii] Forget, Holy Ghost.  The Catholic Encyclopedia

[xxxix] Joyce, The Blessed Trinity, The Catholic Encyclopedia

[xl] Theodosian Code XVI.1.2.  From Medieval Sourcebook: Banning of Other Religions. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/theodcodeXVI.html viewed 7/28/08

Now the above mainly dealt with the fourth century.

In the 2nd century, Irenaeus of Lyon claimed to have met Polycarp of Smyrna.  And both Polycarp and Irenaeus held a semi-Arian view of the Godhead.  Here is some of what Irenaeus wrote in the 2nd century:

…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 Irenaeus states that only the Father, the Son, and those who possess the adoption (Christians) are God. This is a binitarian, not a trinitarian view.

Irenaeus is considered as a saint by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches as well as by many Protestants.  Yet, he was NOT trinitarian (contrary to the views of some such as GCI, see WCG: Irenaeus on the Trinity).

The reality is that the binitarian/semi-Arian view of the Godhead was held by most who professed Christ, except certain heretics, in the first, second, third, and much of the fourth centuries.  It was the original view of the Godhead and should not have been changed by councils called by Roman Emperors (Constantine and Theodosius).

While we in the Living Church of God do believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that does not mean that we believe in the Greco-Roman trinity that was adopted at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D.  This was not the position of the early church, nor of most of the bishops until Imperial decrees caused many to compromise.

Some articles of possibly related interest may include:

Binitarian View: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning Is 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?
Virgin Birth: Does the Bible Teach It? What does the Bible teach? What is claimed in The Da Vinci Code?
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?
Binitarianism: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning This is a shorter article than the Binitarian View article, but has a little more information on binitarianism.
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

Because of all the problems in Europe, some believe that it will break up and not come together.  But that is not what biblical prophecy teaches.  Furthermore, the late Herbert W. Armstrong as well as Catholic prophecies indicated that it would precisely be because of economic, civil, and religious problems that the final European beast power would rise up.

In 1965, the late Herbert W. Armstrong wrote:

…European countries urgently want political union, the very UNITED STATES OF EUROPE I have been assuring PLAIN TRUTH readers for 31 years is definitely coming. It will unite them into a giant third World Power…

There is a definite German “Kultur!n There is a French culture that is in many respects quite different. Then there is a still different Italian culture, a Spanish culture, a Scandinavian culture, a Swiss culture–and all are different! European nations speak different languages, have different aspi rations, different customs, different traditions. Europe is often called a “crazy-quilt” of nations.

HOW, THEN, CAN THEY AGREE TOGETHER AND UNITE? For years The PLAIN TRUTH has said these nations are going to have to realize their inability to unite themselves politically-to choose a common political-military Leader that all can trust. They are going to finally face the fact they must look to a Supreme Authority they can all trust! That Supreme Authority cannot be a politician, or a general (De Gaulle is both). The only possible answer is a Religious Leader! (Armstrong HW. Personal. Plain Truth, November 1965, pp.1-2)

So, he felt that while they needed a political-military leader, some type of religious leader was needed to unify Europeans.

But there was more.

In a sermon on July 7, 1984, the late Herbert W. Armstrong reported:

And I can see now, the event that is going to trigger the formation of the reunification in Europe; the resurrection of the medieval Holy Roman Empire that we’ve been looking forward to that is prophesied to come…

But I believe that some event is going to happen suddenly just like out a blue sky that is going to shock the whole world and is going to cause the nations in Europe to realize they must unite! … Well now I think I can see what may be the very event that is going to trigger…that is the economic situation in the world…

The whole banking structure in the United States is a network all jointed together. But not only that, one nation has to deal with other nations and imports and exports. And so they have to have a means of transforming money from one nation to another. And so the banking structure is international and interwoven…

Now when the financial structure breaks down, all civilization is going to break down…

Herbert Armstrong clearly believed that economic problems would lead to civil unrest and that this would trigger the final reunification of Europe.

Despite grumblings by various news reports, Europe is actually more and more uniting because of the economic crisis.

Herbert Armstrong also felt that religious events would be a factor, for the end time including “a ‘man of sin’ be revealed” by “signs and lying wonders” and that “the Roman Empire, is again restored with a great religious leader”. “In Revelation 19:19-20 is pictured the beast “and with him the false prophet that does miracles before him…”(Armstrong HW. Who or What is the Prophetic Beast? pp. 21,24).

But he is not the only one who suggested these events.

Certain “Catholic” prophecies indicate that civil unrest and religious signs and wonders would be factors in the final unification. Notice some of the civil unrest prophecies:

Jean Paul Richter (died 1809): Through a terrible purgatory Europe will return to the faith. (Culleton, The Prophets and Our Times, p. 182)

Monk Hilarion (15th century): The people of the peninsula of Europe will suffer by needless wars until the Holy Man comes.  The Lion will come from a high mountain in the enlightened nation. (Dupont, pp. 21-22)

Brother Louis Rocco (19th century): All over Europe there will rage terrible civil wars…The German sections of Austria will join Germany, so will also the commercial cities of Belgium and Switzerland. A Catholic descendant of a German imperial house will rule a united Germany with peace, prosperity and great power, for God will be with this sovereign (the Great Monarch?)…A Great Monarch will arise after a period of terrible wars and persecutions in Europe. He will be a Catholic… (Culleton, The Prophets and Our Times, p. 195).

Notice, for another example (this time from Eastern Orthodox Catholic sources), signs and wonders that are supposed to accompany the rising up of the “Great Monarch” (known in the Bible as the final King of the North):

Discourse of a Holy Man to Emperor Manuel II Palaeologous (15th century): And the members of the clergy and the monastics as well as every social stratum of humanity, against their own will, but led by a divine sign will come to Constantinople…Then, an angel…will descend from heaven…and he will crown the Emperor of Peace. The King will be present in Constantinople (Tzima Otto, pp. 99-100).

Anonymou Paraphrasis (10th century): The one true King..will hear the voice and instructions by an Angel appearing to him…the name of the King is hidden [concealed] among the nations…And the particular manner of the king’s manifestation to the public [to the world] will take place as follows: A star will appear [will become visible] for three days long and during the third hour of the night, on the eve of the feast day of the Morther of the Most High (it will become visible) in the Middle of the City. And this star is not one among the planets…And a herald speaking with a very loud voice in the course of the three days will summon and unveil the hoped for one…There will become visible in the sky a ‘nebulous firmament of the sun’…under that image will be suspended a cross…And the invisible herald from Heaven with his thunderous voice will say to the people: Is this man agreeable to you?  At that moment everybody will be taken by fear and terror…they will elevate him on a high spot and will proclaim him (their) hereditary Monarch (Tzima Otto, pp. 30,32, 50-51, 52,53).

The combination of economic issues, civil unrest, and signs and wonders apparently will result in a fully unified Europe.

So, although there will likely be additional economic, severe civil, and unusual religious problems in Europe, it is prophesied to reunite.

And while some will rightly point out that the nations of Europe are so different that they do not have the real potential to unite, Bible believers realize the fact that the union will be fragile was foretold thousands of years ago in the Book of Daniel:

40 And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, that kingdom will break in pieces and crush all the others. 41 Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay. 42 And as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile. 43 As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.  (Daniel 2:40-43)

Thus, even though sometimes it looks like Europe will not make it, according to the above and other biblical prophecies, the final emergence of a European beast power (despite internal problems) will come to pass.

Some articles of possibly related interest may include:

Europa, the Beast, and Revelation Where did Europe get its name? What might Europe have to do with the Book of Revelation? What about “the Beast”? Is an emerging European power “the daughter of Babylon”? What is ahead for Europe?
Who Was Herbert W. Armstrong? How is He Viewed Today? Includes quotes from the 1973 edition of The Autobiography of Herbert W. Armstrong and explains who he was and how he should be viewed today.
Catholic Prophecies: Do They Mirror, Highlight, or Contradict Biblical Prophecies? People of all faiths may be surprised to see what various Roman and Orthodox Catholic prophets have been predicting as many of their predictions will be looked to in the 21st century.