I'm not interested in whether or not I agree with the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

 First, for people who don't know what I'm referring to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_ecumenical_councils

I want to state that this goes both ways, I'm not so Anarchic that I'm gonna act like whatever decision the councils made must be wrong, that attitude also gives them too much power.  I feel like I basically agree with the main Theological decisions of the first four Ecumenical Councils, but those Councils also made smaller decisions on things like Church Hierarchy that I can't get behind.  The issue around which the 6th Council was convened I haven't even looked into enough to know if I'd have an opinion on it.  The rest are issues I have and will continue to look into on this Blog.

To me The Bible is not just the Final Authority but the only Authority. Now people will point to Acts 15 as Biblical Support for the idea of Church Councils.  First of all that Council was attended by The Apostles, I've already refuted the notion that Apostolic Authority can be passed on.  So this is the only Council that has Apostolic Authority, and it's decision and historical context is recorded for us in Scripture.

But secondly, even if you convinced me some Councils, like the Pre-Nicene/Pre-Constantine ones, mattered even a little bit.  The Ecumenical Councils wee in direct violation of passages like 1 Corinthians 6 and Matthew 18 that forbid Christians from turning to Civil Authorities to settle disputes.  It doesn't matter if a head of state is a Christian, their authority is Civil not Ecclesiastical.  The Council of Nicaea was presided over by Constantine himself, and the Bishops asked him to do it, maybe because they felt he'd be a neutral party.  Constantine was not Baptized till he was on his death bed.  To me Baptism has nothing to do with Salvation, but to most Ecumenical Council affirming Christians you at least have to be Baptized to be considered a part of The Church.

The second Ecumenical Council was convened by the Emperor who first made Christianity the state religion of the Empire for the purpose of defining what his new state religion was.  The first Council of Ephesus basically became two councils and it was Theodosius II who decided which one was right.  Chalecdon wasn't even headed by a Bishop but by a committee of Senators and government officials  The 5th Ecumenical Council was entirely a product of Justinian's misguided agenda to try and fix the Chalcedonian schism by further pushing away the Nesotrians and others who were simply associated with them.

So for this reason the Ecumenical councils are the least authoritative councils not the most.  They are The Church marrying the State, the Sin of Pergamos.

There is also debate about how many of these even fit what the word "Ecumenical" is supposed to mean.  The first two councils held in Constantinople had less then half as many attendees as Nicaea.  For Nicaea Constantine had invited 1,800 Bishops, 1000 in the east and 800 in the west, but only 318 max showed up.  Now it'd be easy for a moderner to throw a "if you don't vote you can't complain" argument at those who didn't attend, but maybe the majority of Bishops actually understood the Biblical Arguments against doing a council like this I laid out above.  Only 5 Bishops represented the entire Western half of the Empire.

One Bishop known to be missing is Lyon's, Lyon was the oldest Church in Gaul the one founded by Irenaeus and other immigrants from Asia Minor but principally Smyrna in the second century.  But neither Maximus of Lyon or Tetradius of Lyon attended instead Gaul was represented by a Bishop of a much less significant city, Nicasius of Die.  We also know Britannia had 3 bishops at this time including one for York, but whether or not any attended Nicaea is disputed.  But it's not just looking West, East of the Empire there were Papa bar Aggai and Simeon Bar Sabbae leading the Church in Babylonia/Persia, there's no evidence they attended the council either.

The 7th and last Council had only 35 attendees and no Frankish Bishops were represented which agitated Charlemagne.  Only Chalcedon had significantly more attendees then the first one, and that was still only 520.  The 3rd and 4th Councils caused Schisms, not even everyone who attended consented to their outcomes.

The fact is I don't consider any of the issues these Councils debated all that important to whether one is a "True Christian" or not.  Now ultimately nothing besides if you call Jesus Lord and believe He's the Son of God matters to if you're a "True Christian" or not.  In other words there pretty much are no false Christians in my view, I firmly believe that because of 1 John 4:15 and 1 Corinthians 12:3.

But even after that the issues discussed at these Councils are not at the top of the list of issues I consider it important to be right on.  Being right on the issue of The Bodily Resurrection and Soterology are certainly above them in importance based on 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5.

Some of my allies on Universal Salvation insist they don't want to make it a core essential doctrine of the Faith, and yet are certainly Ecumenical Christians to some extent.  To me being right or wrong on this issue is ultimately more important even then if you're right on The Trinity.  And after those two vital issues I may even consider the Virgin Birth and Pre-Millenialism more important then The Trinity.

Again to be clear my view of the Trinity is a Nicene one, especially in the context of my research into Old Testament Trinity passages.  But I am sympathetic to those at the Council who weren't even slightly Arian but still uncomfortable with the word Homusias because it was Unbiblical and condemned by an earlier Pre-Nicene council for it's association with Modalism, and some claim it was Constantine himself who insisted on this word being in the Creed.

And there are some passages like Hebrews 1-2 that I'm not sure how to refute the Arian interpretation of.  So I can't consider people like Arians or Unitarians damnable heretics, especially not the ones around today who are with me on Universal Salvation.

I know I may be reinforcing the notion among critics of Universal Salvation that it is a heresy by  admitting to it making me feel some kinship with Untarians and Mormons.  But my point is you should consider Salvation more important whatever your position on Salvation is.  And no Universal Salvation is not a reason for me to break with the Ecumenical Councils, the 7th and final one declared Gregory of Nyssa a "Father of the Fathers", and numerous people have already debunked the notion that Universal Salvation was condemned by the fifth council.  (It's not an Ecumenical Council but the council of Orange condemned both Pelagianism and Double-Predestination equally.) C Baxter Kruger very strongly ties The Trinity to his view of Universal Salvation.

Soteorlogy was not directly the subject of any of the Ecumenical Councils, though I know Ryan Reeves likes to explain how it's all indirectly relevant. But the fact is none of these hard to understand nuances of Theology or Christology matter so long as you simply believe what The Bible says about Jesus being without Sin and dying for our Sins and being Risen to a Bodily Resurrection.

Protestant Christianity is divided between three different positions on the Councils.  The Anglican Church and I think some others uphold all Seven of them.  Some other High Church Protestants like Lutherans uphold the first four but not the last three.  (I'd like to know more about their reasons for doing so, I haven't looked into it yet.)  And then there are people like Independent Baptists and the Hebrew Roots movement who like me don't feel bound to any of them, though too many of those take the overly contrary attitude I also warned about at the start.

I've coined the term Justinianity for all denominations that uphold the fifth Ecumenical Council (to my knowledge there are none that keep the 5th but drop either of the final two).  That's Roman Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, and maybe some others.

What was the error of the Nicolaitans?

They were not named after a man called Nicolas.  The Nicolas of Acts 6 is mentioned in a positive context.  We don't need to go outside scripture to determine what this doctrine was, it's deduced from the etymology of the name.

Nico-, combinatory form of nīke, means "victory" in Greek, and laos means "people", or more specifically, "the laity"; hence, the word may be taken to mean "lay conquerors" or "conquerors of the lay people".

The fact that this error is mentioned in only two messages doesn't necessarily mean it's relevant to only those two.  Only Ephesus is specifically commended for rejecting it and only Pergamos is specifically criticized for having some who fully hold it.  It might be possible others Churches had a more in-between version of it.  It also seems like it may not have originated in either of these cities.

That's been my position in the past, but I'm prepared to change my mind if new information comes to my attention.

A lot of confusion about this issue comes from thinking it's the same thing as the doctrine of Balaam also mentioned in the message to Pergamos.  In the message to Pergamos Jesus talks about them following the error of Balaam (Pornea/Whoredom and eating food sacrificed to Idols), then says they also have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolatians.

This is why the opinions of the "Early Church Fathers" are not very credible on this issue, because right from the first of them to bring up the subject, Ireneaus, they are being treated as if they're the same.  This is a mistake I myself have made talking about the issue in the past, so it's understandable.

It's not till the Seventh Century people start saying the Nicolatians' error was that Nicolas let other men lay with his wife.  When Clement of Alexandria mentions this story he's referring to it as a positive.

However what if there is a third Church in Revelation directly relevant to this issue?

The second through sixth Churches in Revelation 2&3 are addressed as "The Church in _____".  But the first is addressed as the "Church of Ephesus" and the last as the "Church of the Laodiceans".

The city of Laodicea was named after a Seleucid queen Laodice.  The Greek roots of the name are Laos (people or laity) and Dike meaning either Justice or Vengeance depending on who you ask.  Notice how if you replace only one letter you get the same roots as Nicolatians.  That could support this name carrying a similar meaning, or maybe you could interpret it has having an opposite meaning.

Early Church Tradition says the first two Bishops of Laodicea were people named in Colossians 4:15-17, (one of them being a woman, Nympha, interesting), they could well have been before the major problems Revelation deals with emerged.  The third known Bishop of Laodicea was Diotrephes, a man refereed to very very negatively in the Epistle known as Third John, in fact he's been interpreted as being the first Monarchical Church Bishop.

And thus this all further backs up the premise of my Heresies of Asia Minor post, as well as The Gospel of The Beloved Disciple.

However the "victory over the people" meaning could also apply to Legalists, people who's issue was the polar opposite of the error of Balaam.  Which could justify equating them with Cerinthus or the Ebonites.

The Heresies of Asia Minor

I'm annoyed by people appealing to the Early Church Fathers as if a doctrine being affirmed by them from very early on must make it valid, because The New Testament informs us heresies were emerging already in the first generation of The Church.

In Acts 20:16 Paul arrived in Ephesus and proceeded to warn them about false teachers who will emerge as soon as he leaves them.  Verses 29-31.

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.  Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.  Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears."

And later in 2 Timothy 1:15 Paul laments that all of Asia has departed from him.

In Revelation 2:2 the Ephesian Church being addressed is commended for rejecting False Apostles.  But the same false doctrines Ephesus resisted here we can infer were not so well resisted by the other churches, especially Pergamos.  Jesus refused to say anything bad about Smyrna because they were dying for their Faith, but even martyrs can be influenced by bad doctrines.

Now the Anti-Paul people insist Revelation is on the other side of this conflict, that Paul and his Clique are the False Apostles Jesus refereed to.  After all Paul said "All of Asia" seemingly not allowing Ephesus as an exception.

The Bible will sometimes use the word "all" hyperbolically when exceptions do exist.  That Ephesus is where Paul gave the warning, and also the only of the Seven Churches to also be recipients of a Paulian Epistle, is sufficient reason to expect them to be the exception.  Also Timothy himself was a Bishop in Ephesus when these letters were written so clearly he represents some support Paul still had there.

Meanwhile it could be a specific Church in Ephesus that John was in contact with being addressed.  It can be inferred that Ephesus is the city these False Apostles were operating in and that's why they're relevant to that message.

However it's also interesting that Jesus addresses them as the "Church of Ephesus" not the "Church in ____" as he did 5 of the 6 following Churches.  Could it be that the true Ephesian Church Paul founded was not actually in Ephesus anymore?  Remember he met with them as Miletus once.

I should mention that different definitions of what "Asia" meant in these kinds of contexts can create ambiguity about if Phyrgian locations (like Laodicea and the recipients of Colossians and maybe Philadephia) count as Asia. Some texts of 1 Timothy end with Paul saying he wrote that letter in Laodicea.  1 Peter 1:1 by not mentioning Phrygia at all is probably counting it as Asia, but language in Acts 16 seems to imply neither Phrygia or Mysia (where Pergamon was) count as Asia.  The Roman Province of Asia included all Seven cities however.  Polycrates seems to be counting Phrygian locations like Hierapolis and Laodicea as Asia, but since Pergamon and Thyatira aren't mentioned we don't know if he'd count them.

I think the more specific use of Asia is treating it as a synonym for Lydia (but with Coastal cities like Miletus, Ephesus and Smyrna added), which The Bible never uses as a location name, but in Acts 16 a woman from Thyatira is called Lydia in the KJV but the Greek means Lydian(of Lydia).  Thyatira was on the border between Lydia and Mysia.  Sardis was the capital of Ancient Lydia and the seat of a Proconsul under Rome.

I talked about the Apostles of Ephesus on this blog before, in that post mostly accepting the traditions at face value.  But now, given this direct Biblical Evidence of False Apostles in Ephesus, I should perhaps be just as skeptical of the traditions about John and the Marys going to Ephesus as I am of Peter going to Rome.  My theory that traditions of Mary Magdelene going to France are derivative of earlier traditions of her going to Ephesus because of Ephesian Christians migrating to France remains valid however.

It's interesting then how much of the alleged "Apostolic Succession" of the Early Church Fathers goes back to Asia Minor.  Polycarp, Ignatius and presumably Papias were all direct students of a "John" who was in Ephesus in the late first century.  Students of Polycarp founded the early church of Lyon in France, one of whom Irenaus was the mentor of Hipolytus an early Bishop of Rome and only Early Church precedent for Dispensationalist interpretations of Daniel 9 and 11.  Ignatius who is given much of the credit for the development of Early Church Hierarchy was a Bishop of Antioch so also played a role in spreading these doctrines beyond Asia Minor.

The Montanists also had their origin in Asia Minor, and were an influence on Tertulian the first Church Father to write in Latin and thus a major influence on later Latin Church writers like Augustine. 

Marcian also first emerged in Asia Minor.  Now at face value he's the opposite of departing from Paul, Marcian was Paul's biggest super fan.  But we see in 1 Corinthians that Paul was also annoyed by people saying they are "Of Paul" he would not like the term "Paulian Christianity".  Paul's warning in Acts 20 was of multiple heresies not just one, some emerging from without and some emerging from within.

Frankly the reason why so much confusion exists about the Nicolatians is because people keep turning to the Early Church Fathers opinions to identify them when in my view they were the Nicolatians and so in constant denial about who the Nicolatians really were and what they taught.

What Papias is quoted as saying about John The Presbyter I view as evidence that the original John of Ephesus was not an authentic Biblical John, but that his followers confused him with John later.

The canonocity of 2 John and 3 John were sometimes disputed in the Early Church.  Including attributing them to John the Presbyter.  But that early dispute gave them the same author, some today think these two Epistles were actually condemning each others authors.  That 3 John's description of Diotrephes fits the author of 2 John like a glove.  And so likewise the author of 3 John could be one of the people 2 John complains about.  Neither text actually identifies itself as having been written by a John.

But assuming they have the same Author, they still both show heretics had emerged within the presumed Johnian community.

Diotrephes has been seen as the first Monarchial Bishop.  Some early Church references do imply that in Asia Paul's Churches had many Elders who were all Bishops while Churches founded by "John" had one Bishop and multiple elders, a Structure elaborated upon by his student Ignatius.  So whether he wrote 2 John or not I think Diotrephes which means "nourished by Zeus" could be a name for the false John of Ephesus.

The origins of identifying the Beloved Disciple with the name of John are partly based on Polycrates statements about the John of Ephesus who he doesn't say was one of the 12.  He does say this John was a Priest (as in Kohen not as in Presbytr) possibly specifically a High Priest since he wore the Sacredotal Plate.  There was a High Priest of the Jerusalem Temple in the First Century named John, he was one of the sons of Ananias and probably the John kindred to the High Priest mentioned in Acts 4.  He served as High Priest twice both very briefly and we don't know what became of him afterwards.

Crenthius was one of the earliest Proto-Gnostics, and he spent time in Asia Minor.  Some also speculate he specifically was among those John's Epistles were written against.   What's distinct about Crenthius is that while Gnostic in many ways including separating the Demiurge from The Father.  He didn't view the Demiurge as Evil but rather taught we still had to follow The Law of Moses.  In a way that makes him a lot like Rob Skiba, who's an ardent Hebrew Roots believer but believes a lot of quasi Gnostic stuff.

The claim that Crenthius's Gospel was a version of Matthew I think must be wrong.  His doctrines make much more sense if he was focusing on Mark.  In fact I now think his Hersey was the origin of removing the last portion of Mark 16.

Melito the Eunuch who fell asleep in Sardis was also someone who seems to have had Legalistic tendencies.  The heresies Paul warned of I think are likely to include falling back into Legalism, after all the Ravening Wolves imagery suggests some of these false teachers will be fellow Benjamites based on Genesis 49.

This does not mean Asia Minor was the only source of Hersey.  Simon Magus I still believe was the real Peter of Rome, Justin Martyr was another mystic from Samaria who started his own school in Rome, and Tatian (possibly the first to teach Endless Torment and other Gnostic ideas) was a student of his. Justin was an early example of seeking to justify claiming that Socrates and Plato taught Christian ideas because they were in contact with the Logos.

I'm not trying to demonize anyone.  Some of the people I mentioned in this post were Martyred for their Faith in Jesus, and for that I firmly believe they won the Crown of Life no matter how flawed their doctrines were.  My point is simply that being an early belief of The Church doesn't make it a correct one.

There is a website called Church-History.Org which has some good information on it, but it says that Protestants were right to reject the Catholic Understanding of Tradition and Apostolic succession but were wrong to reject "Apostolic Tradition".   The problem is this Apostolic Tradition becomes exactly the same thing as the "Oral Torah" of Rabbinic Judaism aka The Pharisees Jesus preached against.  And it cites Ignatius as proof monarchical Church structure isn't heretical while admitting it's not supported by Scripture.

All references in the New Testament to "traditions" that seem positive are to teachings that became written down in the New Testament.  You need to remember when Paul was writing not even all 4 Gospels had been written down yet, and most of his Epistles predate Luke-Acts which were written while he was in Rome.  One of the things Jude refers to as a teaching from the Apostles is written down in 2 Peter, which some scholars think was written later then Jude.  But for the most part these "traditions" are what Jesus taught in The Gospels and what Peter and John taught in the first 11 chapters of Acts.

The Priesthood of all Believers

I want to make a post on that doctrine on this Blog, since it fits into the overarching theme of opposing organized Religion.

First of all it's a natural implication of Believers now being God's Temple/Tabernacle.  A doctrine I've defended mostly on my Prophecy Blog, in posts like the one on there not being a Millennial Temple, or on The Church being The Bride of Christ.  Note, the latter of those posts was made back when I was more Dispensational then I am now, I have revised my view on that subject since. 

But as far as passages specifically about the Priesthood of Believers.  We could start with 1 Peter 2:4-10.

"To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.  Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.  Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.  But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."

In The Book of Revelation it's clearly taught in Chapter 1 verses 4-6.  And it becomes a part of determining who the 24 Elders are because of Chapter 5 verses 6-10.  (I view the 24 Elders as among those saints who were Resurrected in 30 AD in Matthew 27:51-53.)

As far as those who might object to this because of how Torah centric they are, and would thus be offended by the notion of the Aaronic Levitical Priesthood becoming obsolete.  This is anticipated in The Torah itself in Exodus 19:5-6.  In fact I think the above quoted 1 Peter passage was drawing on these verses.

"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."

This wasn't fulfilled during the Old Testament because Israel kept disobeying.  Now with the Blood of Jesus shed, the true intent of Yahuah can finally be fulfilled.

The word translated "Everlasting" or "Forever' or "Eternal" when referring to things like the Levitical Priesthood is Olam, which means age or eon, it does not actually mean forever. Whether it's Exodus 40:15, or Leviticus 16:34, or Leviticus 24:8, or Numbers 25:13.  Same with Exo 21:6, Exo 27:21, Exo 28:43, Exo 29:28, Lev 6:18, Lev 6:22.

In Deuteronomy 33:27, Olam is used of the "everlasting arms" but a different word is used to call God Eternal.

 Likewise the phrase "all the days", which is introduced about time periods that have an end in Genesis 3:14-17.  And again in Genesis 5.  And it's also used of the Nazarite vow in Numbers 6.  If "all the days" is being used of something that is also defined as an Olam, an Age, then it clearly means all the days of that age, just as it can also mean all the days of someone's life.  Taking the phrase to inherently mean all the days of eternity, it completely illogical.

The Book of Hebrews is considered the definitive discussion of this doctrine.  Before mentioning it I wanted to show that the Doctrine isn't dependent on Paul, since some people want to reject Paul.

Much of that is built around Melchizedek, and his Priesthood as superior to Aaron's.  Psalm 110 is one of the most quoted Psalms in the New Testament, Jesus clearly defined it's subject as The Messiah when he quotes it in Matthew 22.  And it refers to the Messiah as a Priest after the order of Melchizedek.

I also view the Melchizedek narrative of Genesis 14 with it's Bread and Wine as the true Torah precedent for the Last Supper/Eucharist, which was NOT the Passover Seder, that would have been eaten the night after Jesus died on The Cross as the Lambs were slaughtered.

Another Priest who predated the Priesthood of Aaron was Jethro, the Priest of Midian.  Jethro was around when the instructions in Exodus, Leviticus and even early Numbers were given.  He returns to his own people when the Israeites head to Kadesh, no where is he told that his Priesthood is now over because of Aaron's being founded, he was still the Priest of Midian.

As far as Ezekiel 40-48 goes, that is discussed when I address the Temple doctrine on my Prophecy blog.  I don't believe there will be a future Temple building.  Regardless the land allotted to the Priests and Levites in Ezekiel I think will probably indeed be given to the descendants of Levi and Aaron in the Millennium and/or New Creation.  That will be their post-Resurrection retirement.  Likewise with the land given to the Nasi/Prince (David) and his children.

I also agree with those who've argued that Jesus had Aaronic blood via his mother.  I think much you can read as eschatological references to Priests or Levites is being not strictly literal.  It's Aaron's Blood being passed on to us via Jesus Blood that was shed on the Cross, and us being made His Seed.

There were a variety of views in The Early Church

Back when I just believed in Eternal Security, I expressed annoyance at those who act like a view didn't exist in the Early Church if apparently no "Early Church Fathers" advocated for it.  When those same people refereed to lots of views existing besides their own.

There is no Biblical support for a notion that the majority will be right.  But even so who's to say the Church Fathers were the majority?  The warning against the Doctrine of the Nicolatians tells me that those who'd obtain that title should not be inherently more trusted.  But they were the only ones who could write and so their sides of the arguments are what were preserved.  We have no way of knowing how much the people in their own flocks even agreed with them.

I want to quote from a "Church Father" who I disagree with possibly the most of anyone, who's soterology certainly is not mine, being the prototype of Calvinism.

 St Augustine (c.354-43): "There are very many ('imo quam plurimi', which can be translated majority) who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments." (Enchiria, ad Laurent. c. 29)

This is backed up by Basil.

St. Basil the Great: (c. 329-379): "The mass of men say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished." (De Asceticis)

Augustine of Hippo in his work City of God: Book 21 Chapters 17-22 describes six views on eternal punishment he disagrees with.  The first two are forms of what we would today call Universal Reconciliation.  The next three are forms of "Once Saved Always Saved".  The last one is something of a works salvation view.

Chapter 17.— Of Those Who Fancy that No Men Shall Be Punished Eternally.

I must now, I see, enter the lists of amicable controversy with those tender-hearted Christians who decline to believe that any, or that all of those whom the infallibly just Judge may pronounce worthy of the punishment of hell, shall suffer eternally, and who suppose that they shall be delivered after a fixed term of punishment, longer or shorter according to the amount of each man's sin. In respect of this matter, Origen was even more indulgent; for he believed that even the devil himself and his angels, after suffering those more severe and prolonged pains which their sins deserved, should be delivered from their torments, and associated with the holy angels. But the Church, not without reason, condemned him for this and other errors, especially for his theory of the ceaseless alternation of happiness and misery, and the interminable transitions from the one state to the other at fixed periods of ages; for in this theory he lost even the credit of being merciful, by allotting to the saints real miseries for the expiation of their sins, and false happiness, which brought them no true and secure joy, that is, no fearless assurance of eternal blessedness. Very different, however, is the error we speak of, which is dictated by the tenderness of these Christians who suppose that the sufferings of those who are condemned in the judgment will be temporary, while the blessedness of all who are sooner or later set free will be eternal. Which opinion, if it is good and true because it is merciful, will be so much the better and truer in proportion as it becomes more merciful. Let, then, this fountain of mercy be extended, and flow forth even to the lost angels, and let them also be set free, at least after as many and long ages as seem fit! Why does this stream of mercy flow to all the human race, and dry up as soon as it reaches the angelic? And yet they dare not extend their pity further, and propose the deliverance of the devil himself. Or if any one is bold enough to do so, he does indeed put to shame their charity, but is himself convicted of error that is more unsightly, and a wresting of God's truth that is more perverse, in proportion as his clemency of sentiment seems to be greater.

He mentions Origen, but distinguishes Origen from most who hold views like this for reasons partly similar to what I expressed in the supplemental part of the post I made yesterday.

Now when I had long ago on forums dealt with enemies of Eternal Security on the subject of the parts I'll get to later, one who emphasized the "Pre-Nicean Fathers" said Augustine is post-Nicean.  In this case we see with Origen that who he speaks of existed before Nicea and Constantine.  And expressed things in a way where it seems like Origen's version didn't come first, since he went further with it.  If Origen came before the others he'd have said they didn't go as far.

There is no source outside Augustine for saying Origen was condemned for this.  He wasn't formally condemned at all till later then Augustine.  And Origen's earliest critics were far more concerned with his other more Platonic teachings.  It is in those areas that Augustine rather resembles Origen suspiciously enough.

Chapter 18.— Of Those Who Fancy That, on Account of the Saints' Intercession, Man Shall Be Damned in the Last Judgment.

There are others, again, with whose opinions I have become acquainted in conversation, who, though they seem to reverence the holy Scriptures, are yet of reprehensible life, and who accordingly, in their own interest, attribute to God a still greater compassion towards men. For they acknowledge that it is truly predicted in the divine word that the wicked and unbelieving are worthy of punishment, but they assert that, when the judgment comes, mercy will prevail. For, say they, God, having compassion on them, will give them up to the prayers and intercessions of His saints. For if the saints used to pray for them when they suffered from their cruel hatred, how much more will they do so when they see them prostrate and humble suppliants? For we cannot, they say, believe that the saints shall lose their bowels of compassion when they have attained the most perfect and complete holiness; so that they who, when still sinners, prayed for their enemies, should now, when they are freed from sin, withhold from interceding for their suppliants. Or shall God refuse to listen to so many of His beloved children, when their holiness has purged their prayers of all hindrance to His answering them? And the passage of the psalm which is cited by those who admit that wicked men and infidels shall be punished for a long time, though in the end delivered from all sufferings, is claimed also by the persons we are now speaking of as making much more for them. The verse runs: Shall God forget to be gracious? Shall He in anger shut up His tender mercies? His anger, they say, would condemn all that are unworthy of everlasting happiness to endless punishment. But if He suffer them to be punished for a long time, or even at all, must He not shut up His tender mercies, which the Psalmist implies He will not do? For he does not say, Shall He in anger shut up His tender mercies for a long period? But he implies that He will not shut them up at all.
And they deny that thus God's threat of judgment is proved to be false even though He condemn no man, any more than we can say that His threat to overthrow Nineveh was false, though the destruction which was absolutely predicted was not accomplished. For He did not say, Nineveh shall be overthrown if they do not repent and amend their ways, but without any such condition He foretold that the city should be overthrown. And this prediction, they maintain, was true because God predicted the punishment which they deserved, although He was not to inflict it. For though He spared them on their repentance yet He was certainly aware that they would repent, and, notwithstanding, absolutely and definitely predicted that the city should be overthrown. This was true, they say, in the truth of severity, because they were worthy of it; but in respect of the compassion which checked His anger, so that He spared the suppliants from the punishment with which He had threatened the rebellious, it was not true. If, then, He spared those whom His own holy prophet was provoked at His sparing, how much more shall He spare those more wretched suppliants for whom all His saints shall intercede? And they suppose that this conjecture of theirs is not hinted at in Scripture, for the sake of stimulating many to reformation of life through fear of very protracted or eternal sufferings, and of stimulating others to pray for those who have not reformed. However, they think that the divine oracles are not altogether silent on this point; for they ask to what purpose is it said, How great is Your goodness which You have hidden for them that fear You, if it be not to teach us that the great and hidden sweetness of God's mercy is concealed in order that men may fear? To the same purpose they think the apostle said, For God has concluded all men in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all, Romans 11:32 signifying that no one should be condemned by God. And yet they who hold this opinion do not extend it to the acquittal or liberation of the devil and his angels. Their human tenderness is moved only towards men, and they plead chiefly their own cause, holding out false hopes of impunity to their own depraved lives by means of this quasi compassion of God to the whole race. Consequently they who promise this impunity even to the prince of the devils and his satellites make a still fuller exhibition of the mercy of God.

This view seems to be based on saying no one even temporarily enters the Lake of Fire.  The logic of it I do like and understand and can play a role in my argument.  But I'm still more like the first group.

Augustine seems to be confused by the notion of allowing Universal Reconciliation to all humans but not including The Devil and Fallen Angels.  I'm not entirely sure what I think on that issue.  But the difference between them and Human Beings is Human Beings are Blood Relations of Jesus as children of Adam.

Chapter 19.— Of Those Who Promise Impunity from All Sins Even to Heretics, Through Virtue of Their Participation of the Body of Christ.

So, too, there are others who promise this deliverance from eternal punishment, not, indeed, to all men, but only to those who have been washed in Christian baptism, and who become partakers of the body of Christ, no matter how they have lived, or what heresy or impiety they have fallen into. They ground this opinion on the saying of Jesus, This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If a man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. John 6:50-51 Therefore, say they, it follows that these persons must be delivered from death eternal, and at one time or other be introduced to everlasting life.

Chapter 20.— Of Those Who Promise This Indulgence Not to All, But Only to Those Who Have Been Baptized as Catholics, Though Afterwards They Have Broken Out into Many Crimes and Heresies.

There are others still who make this promise not even to all who have received the sacraments of the baptism of Christ and of His body, but only to the Catholics, however badly they have lived. For these have eaten the body of Christ, not only sacramentally but really, being incorporated in His body, as the apostle says, We, being many, are one bread, one body; 1 Corinthians 10:17 so that, though they have afterwards lapsed into some heresy, or even into heathenism and idolatry, yet by virtue of this one thing, that they have received the baptism of Christ, and eaten the body of Christ, in the body of Christ, that is to say, in the Catholic Church, they shall not die eternally, but at one time or other obtain eternal life; and all that wickedness of theirs shall not avail to make their punishment eternal, but only proportionately long and severe.

Chapter 21.— Of Those Who Assert that All Catholics Who Continue in the Faith Even Though by the Depravity of Their Lives They Have Merited Hell Fire, Shall Be Saved on Account of the Foundation Of Their Faith.

There are some, too, who found upon the expression of Scripture, He that endures to the end shall be saved, Matthew 24:13 and who promise salvation only to those who continue in the Catholic Church; and though such persons have lived badly, yet, say they, they shall be saved as by fire through virtue of the foundation of which the apostle says, For other foundation has no man laid than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day of the Lord shall declare it, for it shall be revealed by fire; and each man's work shall be proved of what sort it is. If any man's work shall endure which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. But if any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire. 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 They say, accordingly, that the Catholic Christian, no matter what his life be, has Christ as his foundation, while this foundation is not possessed by any heresy which is separated from the unity of His body.  And therefore, through virtue of this foundation, even though the Catholic Christian by the inconsistency of his life has been as one building up wood, hay, stubble, upon it, they believe that he shall be saved by fire, in other words, that he shall be delivered after tasting the pain of that fire to which the wicked shall be condemned at the last judgment.

Now to the people I alluded to before who say this doesn't prove Eternal Security existed before Nicea.  Well for one I have a quote of Origen I'd mentioned in an old post where he attacks people who seemed to believe in some form of Eternal Security.

But I'd also say that Augustine wasn't that long after Nicea, it's silly to suggest three different forms of this could develop entirely in that short a period of time and become significant enough for Augustine to find worth addressing.

Chapter 22.— Of Those Who Fancy that the Sins Which are Intermingled with Alms-Deeds Shall Not Be Charged at the Day of Judgment.

I have also met with some who are of opinion that such only as neglect to cover their sins with almsdeeds shall be punished in everlasting fire; and they cite the words of the Apostle James, He shall have judgment without mercy who has shown no mercy. James 2:13 Therefore, say they, he who has not amended his ways, but yet has intermingled his profligate and wicked actions with works of mercy, shall receive mercy in the judgment, so that he shall either quite escape condemnation, or shall be liberated from his doom after some time shorter or longer. They suppose that this was the reason why the Judge Himself of quick and dead declined to mention anything else than works of mercy done or omitted, when awarding to those on His right hand life eternal, and to those on His left everlasting punishment. Matthew 25:33 To the same purpose, they say, is the daily petition we make in the Lord's prayer, Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. Matthew 6:12 For, no doubt, whoever pardons the person who has wronged him does a charitable action. And this has been so highly commended by the Lord Himself, that He says, For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Matthew 6:14-15 And so it is to this kind of almsdeeds that the saying of the Apostle James refers, He shall have judgment without mercy that has shown no mercy. And our Lord, they say, made no distinction of great and small sins, but Your Father will forgive your sins, if you forgive men theirs. Consequently they conclude that, though a man has led an abandoned life up to the last day of it, yet whatsoever his sins have been, they are all remitted by virtue of this daily prayer, if only he has been mindful to attend to this one thing, that when they who have done him any injury ask his pardon, he forgive them from his heart.

And that last one is a works Salvation view basically.  Easy enough to refute.  But Augustine's objection to it is the opposite of mine.

Chapters 23-27 are Augustine giving his counter arguments to these.  I don't feel like addressing those here, maybe in a future follow up post.  Needless to say much of it comes down to Augustine not knowing Greek and going by flawed Latin translations of Aionion as Eternal.

My objective today is just to show that a variety of views existed.

The Doctrine of The Nicolaitanes

Was not named after a man called Nicolas.  The Nicolas of Acts 6 is mentioned in a positive context.  We don't need to go outside scripture to determine what this doctrine was, it's deduced from the etymology of the name.

Nico-, combinatory form of nīko, means "victory" in Greek, and laos means "people", or more specifically, "the laity"; hence, the word may be taken to mean "lay conquerors" or "conquerors of the lay people".

It was early Church Fathers who were guilty of this sin like Ignatius, Victorinus of Pettau,  Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret who started claiming the name came from a person called Nicolas, and sought to identify it with various views they didn't like, particularity some form of "Antimonianism".

There are people out there who want to deny that the Pre-Nicean fathers were guilty of this.  JesusWordsOnly (which wants to label Paul a heretic) says it was only in Rome that monarchical church hierarchy existed prior to Constantine.  Their documentation that the the church services during this period didn't revolve around sermons is interesting to me as a House Church advocate.  But that is irrelevant to this issue.  Terullian (one of their favorites as he was blatantly Hostile to Paul in Against Marcion) clearly believed in the Heresy of Apostolic succession.  In Perscripiton Against Heretics Chapter 32.

"Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed."

Their claim that Paul supported Hierarchical Church Structure I believe is false.

So this website wants to blame Paul for hierarchical and monarchical church structure.  Yet they believe it only caught on in Rome.  Not in Asia Minor and Greece where he founded countless churches..

Some sources make it seem like in Asia Minor the churches founded by John had multiple elders and one bishop, while the ones founded by Paul had multiple elders who were all bishops.

Their premise is dependent on saying the Doctrine of the Nicolaitanes only caught on in Rome, not in the Eastern Churches where they are specifically refereed to in Revelation.

In the letters to the Seven Churches in Revelation 2 and 3, this heresy is brought up in two of them,  Only the church in Ephesus is commended for totally rejecting it (which happens to also be the one of the Seven with the strongest ties to Paul, being visited by Paul in Acts and the recipient of one of his epistles, and when Timothy was when he received his Epistles).

Only Pergamos is condemned for having them, but Pergomas is not one of the two worst over all, nor is Ephesus one of the two best, so your position on this doctrine is not the be all end all of being a good church.

Why is it seemingly irrelevant to the other five?  I have a hypothesis.  Let's use HIV as an allegory for the Nicolatian heresy. Only Ephesus was HIV Negative, completely free of it.  Only Pergamos had full blown Aids.  But the other five all had the illness to some degree, maybe in some it was more benign then others.

The Jesus Words Only movement is also an enemy of both Faith Alone and Eternal Security.  It's refreshing to see an enemy of Eternal Security admit Paul taught it.  And he doesn't even question Paulian Authorship of select Epistles (Besides Hebrews which they say based on their reverence for Tertullian was Barnabas).

This desire to blame the evil of organized religion and Eternal Security on the same source is totally illogical.  Just imagine a power hungry Pastor trying to pound into his flock a belief that they must be obedient and submissive to his pastoral authority to be right with God.  But he also teaches that no matter what they won't lose their salvation.  Wow, that'll sure keep em in line.  Many Pastors do do that, to me that just shows that you can get salvation right and still be wrong in other areas.  But the two notions do not logically go together.

Calvinists and Augustine and others who say Salvation can't be lost but don't teach assurance of Salvation, or "if you're really saved you won't".  That belief has the exact same effect on a believer as thinking Salvation is by works or can be lost, it's just a matter of semantics.

But this website thinks Paul taught Calivnism, apparently so did Tertullian, and maybe Marcion (I'm skeptical of just how accurately Marcion's critics presented his doctrine).  Paul refereed to "Predestination" but not the Calvinist understanding of it.  Paul clarified we are Predestined by the Foreknowledge of God in Romans 8:29, consistent with Peter in Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:2.

Paul taught in his depiction of the Bema Judgment in Corinthians that some will receive no Rewards but still be saved.  It's clear elsewhere he considered not sinning one of the things you get rewards for.  He refereed to being afraid of losing his own rewards.  His response to Antimonian attitudes in 1 Corinthians 6 and Hebrews 6 was to warn of a loss of Inheritance, which Revelation 21-22 also alludes to, not all the Saved are in New Jerusalem, that is the Outer Darkness of Matthew.  Laodicea's problem was not a belief that Salvation couldn't be lost but a belief that their Reward couldn't be lost.  Romans 4 refers to him that worketh not but is still saved.

None of that is good for the 5th point of Calvinism, it's all material that Calvin and his followers are uncomfortable with and tend to avoid.  Everything people use to try and make it seem like Paul didn't teach Eternal Security, does prove he didn't teach Calvinism.

There is perhaps a variation of the fifth point that says it's only actual Apostasy a saved person can't commit.  Apostasy means "falling away", that's the term in Greek every time you see that phrase in the KJV of the New Testament.  I feel no matter which NT author is using it it's illogical to suggest any fake believer truly qualifies as apostasy.  So the existence of the term means it can happen.  Paul predicted it in II Thessalonians 2.  The issue is can you lose salvation from it?  Surely Paul doesn't think so.  But you can lose your inheritance.

Let's talk about the office of Pastor

Mostly as it's understood by Independent Baptist and sometimes Pentecostal forms of Christianity.  Who are in different ways the closest to being Biblically accurate on the nature of The Church as well as the local church.

I did a post in the past defending Female Pastors.  I stand by my main points there, but my views on the nature of the office have progressed somewhat as I've further studied The Word, and are still progressing really.

The Pastor who I don't like to name said some things in a few of his sermons I viewed recently that interest me.

1. He says in The KJV only three words ever refer to the office of Pastor.  Pastor (obviously), Bishop, and Elder.  Others however certainly see other NT terms as potential synonyms for the office of Pastor.

2. None of three titles is ever applied to Paul, so Paul never was a Pastor, he started Churches and then appointed other Bishops over them.  My post on Women Pastors had assumed Paul to be a Pastor, so that is interesting.

3. Deacon in The Bible doesn't mean what most Churches today use the word for (which he says shouldn't exist), Deacons were the Assistant Pastors.

Some, not all, but some in the House Church movement have been saying the Office of Pastor should be abolished and isn't really Biblical at all.  I'm not sure I entirely agree with that, in-spite of my disdain for organized religion in any form.

But I have grown annoyed at seeing certain Independent Baptist Pastors (even some within the House Church Movement), who greatly over emphasize the "authority" of the Pastor.  Making it sound a lot like to them the local church is supposed to be a dictatorship ruled by The Pastor.  It becomes just another variation on the doctrine of the Nicolatians (victory over the lay people).

The first New Testament office I want to address is Apostle.  I'm a continuationist on the issue of the Spiritual Gifts.  But The Apostle is one NT office that did end with the first Generation.  It refers to the Eye Witnesses of the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 9:1) of whom Paul defined himself as the last (1 Corinthians 15:9).

It is starting to seem to me like this view of Pastoral authority has been built up by merging various New Testament offices (or callings as I'd rather call them) together. But it is possible for more then one such calling to apply to one person.  At the very least the different words refer to different aspects of the Pastor's responsibility.

The word Pastor itself as the usual default among Baptists is perhaps an unfortunate misnomer.  The word is used in the KJV only once, in Ephesians 4:11, a verse that lists numerous offices or callings.  At least one other word there has been used as a synonym for the office of Pastor, Prophet.

Prophecy and Prophet in The Bible is not just about predictions of the future, it's proclaiming the word of God.  So any Preacher is a Prophet. But I also feel strongly from Corinthians that the head(s) of a congregations should not be the only people to Prophecy.

The only 3 times you see "Preacher" in the KJV of the New Testament it's a Greek word that means herald.  One time it's referring to an Old Testament figure, Noah in Peter's Epistles.  In the Epistles to Timothy Paul twice calls himself a Preacher of The Gospel.  Preach, preached, and preaching are sometimes the verb form of that noun, but the verb form of the noun translated Gospel is also translated that way.  As well as the noun translated Evangelist, another title used in Ephesians 4:11.

Every Christian should be an Evangelist to an extent, the Great Commission is for us all.  But we don't all have the ability or the calling to dedicate our lives to traveling to bring the Gospel to new regions like Paul did.

The word translated Pastor is very similar to words translated Shepherd elsewhere (Strongs treats it as the same word, but it has a unique distinct spelling in the Greek text).  But also similar to words for flock. No other Bible verse justifies making any member of The Body a Shepherd, Jesus makes clear in John 10:16 he is the only Shepherd of his flock, Jesus doesn't need "under shepherds".  Hebrew 13:20 included.

The grammar in Ephesians 4:11 pairs Pastors and Teachers together in a way that isn't done with the others.  Sometimes in a flock the more well trained sheep help keep the others inline by setting an example.  Perhaps that is all the word translated Pastor means.  Teaching by example.

Teacher here does not mean the modern notion of a Teacher, nothing in The Bible ever approved of the modern notion of school.  Tutor might be more accurate.

Elder is not always used as a title of a special office at all.  Sometimes it just means an older or more experienced person. Anyone entrusted with a leadership position should be an elder certainly, so it does seem to be a synonym sometimes.

Bishop is the least popular KJV word among KJV only believers.  Since we feel what it means has been completely corrupted by the Catholics and Orhtodox and Anglicans.

The Greek word means overseer, and the KJV does also translate it Overseer in Acts 20:28.

Even some Evangelicals (who support the idea of denominations above the local church) will insist Overseer refers not to the local "Pastor" but to a higher rank that over sees "pastors".

I believe the word, when used of Christians (It is used of Jesus in 1 Peter 2:25), refers to the person who over sees the church service, when the believers gather together, to make sure things go orderly and isn't complete anarchy.  It may be that it was not meant to come with the assumption that they also Preach or Prophecy during a service.

1 Timothy 3 gives the Deacon largely the same instructions as the Bishop.  That might explain why some have interpreted it to mean an "assistant pastor".  As well as Philippians 1:1.

Another word used as a synonym for what we perceive the "Pastor" to be is Minister.  Minister (as a noun) in the KJV comes from the same word translated deacon.  It's also translated sometimes servant.  The verbs minister, and ministry and ministered are from the same Greek roots.

Phebe in Romans 16:1 is a deaconess in the Greek.

The word translated "rule over" in 1 Timothy 5:17 (and used of Phebe in Romans 16:2) means to stand before, to attend to like a caretaker.  1 Peter 5:3 tells the Elders not to be lords over God's heritage.

Matthew 20:25-27

But Jesus called them unto him, and said, "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.  But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:"

Matthew 23:8-11

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.  And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.  Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

Many even Independent Baptists still feel you can't start a church on your own, a "Pastor" has to be appointed by another "Pastor".  And I also see lots of people attacking controversial famous pastors by asking what seminary they attended and what their credentials are.

Matthew 21:23

And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?"

 And Jesus answered and said unto them, "I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.  The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?"

 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, "If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?  But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet."

 And they answered Jesus, and said, "We cannot tell". And he said unto them, "Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things".

The Authority of any Christian to do what The Holy Spirit wants them to do comes solely from The Holy Spirit.

There are Overseers and Deacons appointed by others in the New Testament era, these were all by Apostles, a rank we don't have anymore.  I think even Timothy and Titus were possibly witnesses of The Resurrection.

The different congregations are told to appoint elders or overseers over themselves.  Which implies an election of sorts.

1 Corinthians 12:28

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

There are no Apostles anymore, they were the Author's of The New Testament so we don't need them anymore having The Bible.

The word translated "governments" there most literally means directorship, which is a good synonym for Overseer.

That verse isn't listing how they are ranked, in any kind of hierarchy, just the order God gave them.  Because we don't see anyone besides the 12 being appointed offices till Acts 6, which I date 6-7 years after Pentecost.  By then The Apostles had already served as Prophets and performed Miracles.
Paul goes on to explain no Believer is all of those things, but I feel some can be more then one.

The Overseer should organize the service.  But it shouldn't be only one person who Preaches or Prophecies or Testifies.  The Prophets should proclaim God's Word.  The Elders should offer advice and lead by example.  But no one has the authority to bud into other people's lives, or question how they run their families.

Some have argued that having only one "Pastor" or Overseer is wrong.  The beginning of Church Government is again in Acts 6, and that was one single congregation, they appointed seven leaders, all are presented as the same rank but  Stephen seems to have some seniority.

Titus 1:5-7 is seen as supporting seeing Elder and "Bishop" as synonyms, but I don't quite see that as proof.  I could also point out that "Elders" is how The Gospels and Acts most commonly refers to the Sanhedrin, and that the word Senate in origin most commonly means a council of Elders.  Throughout the Old Testament the term Elders is frequently used to refer local leadership of various cities.

Here is an interesting article I don't entirely agree with.  Also this.

I don't think there needs to be a universal rule for how each local church should be organized.  It seems from some early sources about the churches in Asia Minor, the ones founded by John tended to have multiple Elders and one Bishop, while the ones founded by Paul tended to have multiple Elders who were all Bishops.  But church structure shouldn't be oligarchical or monarchical.  All the leadership should be servants, and if there is a single leader among the leadership he should be merely a first among equals, or a spokesperson for the group.

Now the Pastor who I do not name, was doing this sermon for the point of condemning those who say the "Pastor" or Bishop or Elder shouldn't be paid.  He points out that Paul was never called a Bishop to diminish Paul's lack of being paid as an example.  But what Paul explains is that one reason he doesn't wanna get paid in this life is it'll take away from his rewards in the next life.

Here is the thing, the main Paul passage cited in support of paid Bishops, First Corinthians 9, never mentioned Bishop or Elder or "Pastor" at all.  The people Paul is talking about are clearly those serving the same role as himself, spreading the Gospel, which would be Evangelists.  He says it's not wrong for them to be paid, especially the ones who unlike him have a wife and kids to support, they have a right to be.  But he also says it hinders the Gospel when one is getting paid.

I Timothy 5:17-18 also refers to elders who are preaching (which Biblically refers to Evangelizing as I pointed out above) and teaching receiving wages, not to anyone overseeing or prophesying in church.  The stuff Jesus says in The Gospels quoted in support of being paid is also about Evangelizing.

A traveling Evangelist is not a member of a fixed local congregation who supports each other, that's why he and he alone of the New Testament Church offices may be in need of a salary.  But it's also better if he can manage to do it without.

I don't think there is any absolute rule one way or the other if the Elders, or Overseers or Deacons should be paid.  Each church should decide between themselves guided by The Holy Spirit how to use the money that comes into the collection plate.

What I do know is it's unBiblical for New Testament churches to demand Tithing.  Tithing was a Tax, it was part of the Old Testament system needed to support The Temple and the Levite cities.  Under the New Testament we're are told to give as the Spirit Leads us, Tithing only comes up in a few of Jesus parables where it serves an allegorical purpose.

One shouldn't forget however that the Early Churches were essentially communes, everyone shared their wealth.

Appealing to the Early Church Fathers

In the letters to the Seven Churches there is only one Doctrine Jesus said he hates.  The Doctrine of the Nicolatians.  Which means "conquerors of the lay people".

Appealing to Church Authority or Tradition, no matter how old, is this Doctrine.  Yet even people who are correct in identifying what that doctrine is fall into the trap of doing just that.

People want to cite various passages from The Epistles foretelling the arising of False Doctrines as relevant to their objections to what are viewed as inherently modern heresies.  But Paul said ravenous wolves would arise teaching these doctrines as soon as he departed (Acts 20:29).  And he dealt with people teaching wrong things during his life also, as did John. 

There is a tendency to view Catholicism as beginning with Constantine, but that's not true.  Pergamos had all the basic qualities of Catholicism when Revelation was written.  All the people we call Early Church Fathers were trying to reconcile Christianity with Rome.  The book called 1 Clement teaches Apostolic succession and the supremacy of the Roman Bishop is heavily implied.

Critics of Eternal Security love to insist no one taught it before Calvin, and the non Calivnist form (what I believe) emerged in America in the 1800s.

Clement of Rome is the only of the "Apostalic fathers" who's words we have directly that we have Scriptural verification did in fact know the Apostles.  Ignatias and Polycorp we think knew them based on their own word or their followers words.  Only First Clement is legit, the other works attributed to him are forgeries.

But even in First Clement he's teaching Apostolic Succession, that's the point of the letter actually.  And implying the supremacy of Rome since he thinks it's his business to tell the Corinthians what to do.  And he believed the pagan myth of the Phoenix to be true, he cited it as a fact and tried using it prove a point.

Still, Clement did teach by Faith Alone how Protestants and Evangelicals define it in chapters 32-33.  And the things quoted from him used against Eternal Security do not really say that, he encourages us to do good works, but says nothing to imply he thinks it's possible for a person to be Saved yet later wind him in Hell.

As I said in an earlier post the epistle of Barnabas was not written by Barnabas.  That epistle fails to even properly teach Salvation by Faith alone.

Maybe it is true all the Church Fathers seem to have been unanimous against Eternal Security.  But to say the doctrine didn't exist is wrong. Origen clearly refers to it being taught by "Heretics".

“Certain ones of those [heretics] who hold different opinions misuse these passages. They essentially destroy free will be introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation and by introducing others as being saved in such a way that they cannot be lost.” ~ Origen (c. 225)

At first glance this might sound like the Claivnist form.  But he may have been misrepresenting what they taught.  And on the incapable of Salvation part he perhaps only meant what many non Calvinists theorize about the Unpardonable Sin (that a person can become "Reprobate" and unsaveble).  Or it could be these were two beliefs Origen considered wrong "Belief in Salvation that can't be lost, and belief in people who can't be saved", that he affiliates with each other here, but weren't necessarily believed by the same people, or at least not always.

History is written by the winners.  The Nag Hamadi collection seems to have shown Irenaeus to have been basically accurate in how he represented the Gnostics (his critics nitpick some things he said of course).  The problem is there is a tendency to confuse the Gnostics with other groups.  And that may have existed among some of their contemporary critics as well.

My point is, we should maybe consider that some groups like the Montanists were completely misrepresented.   And perhaps were really hated mainly for believing in Eternal Security, and/or that the Covenant with Israel as a nation still stood.  Or simply in some way threatening the church hierarchy.

If you're against Replacement Theology and appeal to the Church Fathers in opposition to Eternal Security, you're a hypocrite.  They were equally unanimous on that.  Likewise if you believe in Eternal Security and appeal to the Church Fathers to back up your support of Replacement theology.

And if you disagree with them on either of those positions, but especially both, and then appeal to the Church Fathers to express your disagreement with my views on Sexual Morality, especially Homosexuality.  You're very hypocritical.  Because there is far less they said on Homosexuality then on those issues.  See the Post I already linked back to.

Also if KJV only you shouldn't like the Church Fathers on the Old Testament, they favored the Septuagint over the Masoretic text. until Jerome at least.

I don't question any of their salvation, many were Martyred for the Faith and I don't consider it possible for a fake believer to become a Martyr.  But they were not Biblically sound.

Eternal Security is perhaps a more valid issue to consider them relevant.  Since those who hold it see it as foundational to the Gospel itself.  But to me the evidence it existed is sufficient.

At least one Early Church Father's main quote on saying Salvation can be lost is one that most honest opponents to Eternal Security must agree is the weakest of all verses they use.  The phrase "He that Endureth to the End shall be Saved" from Matthew 10 and 24, which are Eschatological and about surviving Persecution to be Saved by Christ's return, NOT Eternal Salvation.  And even then the verses don't say who doesn't wont be saved, that's just something read into it.  The point is that failing to endure isn't Sin in those verses but dying.

The point is, no matter how unanimous Church Opinions may have seemed.  Scripture alone is the Inspired Infallible Word of God.

I don't know whether or not John Chrysostom believed in Eternal Security.  But he does have a quote that speaks to how I'd respond to those who view Calvinism and Eternal Security inseparable.  Who assert that you can't believe we're Saved by our Free Will if we can't also lose it.

“All is in God’s power, but so that our free-will is not lost...it depends therefore on us and on Him. We must first choose the good, and then He adds what belongs to Him. He does not precede our willing, that our free-will may not suffer. But when we have chosen, then He affords us much help...It is ours to choose beforehand and to will, but God’s to perfect and bring to the end.” (On Hebrews, Homily 12)

Here is another blogger on this subject.  But I do not agree with everything he says. Here is one on what I must qualify is a Calvinist blog.  It's about Justification by Faith alone not specifically Eternal Security.  But some quotes alluding to it's existence are there.  Contrary to Catholic and Orthodox critics the Early Church absolutely DID teach Justification by Faith Alone, as we Evangelicals define it.  Here the same Calvinist blog deals with Eternal Security.

My annoyance on the Eternal Security issue is how the mere fact that the Church Fathers themselves didn't teach it is considered proof that it didn't exist, and yet I have found examples of those same Church Father teaching against it.

Augustine of Hippo in City of God, 21:17-27 addresses many varied views of Salvation that existed at this time.  In 26 he says.

"But, say they, the catholic Christians have Christ for a foundation, and they have not fallen away from union with Him, no matter how depraved a life they have built on this foundation, as wood, hay, stubble; and accordingly the well-directed faith by which Christ is their foundation will suffice to deliver them some time from the continuance of that fire, though it be with loss, since those things they have built on it shall be burned. Let the Apostle James summarily reply to them: ‘If any man say he has faith, and have not works, can faith save him?’”

His misuse of James here is common in modern attacks on Eternal Security and Salvation by Faith alone.  He is quoting a question not an answer.

After Augustine's day, Bede writes against those who believe "that it does not matter whether they live evil lives or do wicked and terrible things, as long as they believe in Christ, because salvation is through faith" (JPJ, 31).

Jerome's writings seem to have contradictions.  Sounding sometimes like a Universalist and sometimes like he believes in a very Non-Calvinist Eternal Security.

"Just as we believe that the torments of the Devil, of all the deniers of God, of the ungodly who have said in their hearts, 'there is no God,' will be eternal, so too do we believe that the judgment of Christian sinners, whose works will be tried and purged in fire will be moderate and mixed with clemency.' Furthermore, 'He who with all his spirit has placed his faith in Christ, even if he die in sin, shall by his faith live forever."

But he also said things contradicting that elsewhere.

It seems Hilary, Jerome, Abmrose and Abmrosiaster taught an early form of Purgutory.  Dividing people's fate at the Judgment into 3 Camps.  The Ungodly who with he Devil will burn forever.  The Sanctified who go directly to Heaven.  And the average Christians who need to be "Purged by fire".  They probably got this "purged by fire" notion from a misunderstanding of what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 3:15 about the Bema Judgment.  That there will be believers who get no rewards because their good deeds were all burned up, but they are still saved.

Tertullian truly proves problematic in Against Marcion, where he goes overboard in opposing Marcion's use of Paul to assert Paul is not a valid Apostle at all, and in that work he seems to oppose even By Faith Alone.  He also does not even consider the Four Gospels equal.

Also a number of these early fathers cited for their opposition to Eternal Security were Universalists.