Back to Top

I Too Am a Christian. You Just Define It Differently

By Gary L. Fiscus

 

            A man recently was offended at my questioning his being a Christian. He has a Jesus-Cross tattoo on his arm. He seldom worships God in what he refers to as an organized religious service. He has heard God’s word preached, some, but has not developed an obedient faith. He has turned a deaf ear to the gospel. He has never been baptized into Christ to allow the Lord’s cleansing blood to wash away his sins, (See Acts 22:16 & 1 Jn. 1:7). I can imagine this man’s story could be repeated over and over! The world in general has a distorted view of what being a Christian is.

            People generally think that followers of Christ first digressed from the Savior and His apostle’s doctrine into what became known as the universal or catholic religious organization. The apostle Paul had warned of this very thing happening in Acts 20:28-29, “I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.” The problem is those same skeptical individuals have the proverbial cart before the horse. They want Catholicism to be the initial religious organization of Christianity followed by various other sacred entities, e.g., Greek Orthodox, Lutheranism, etc.

            The fact is that the church of Christ, (not a denominational name but an identifying clause or phrase) was begun by Jesus and His apostles. The time was circa A.D. 30-33. The city was Jerusalem. The world power was Rome. The Hebrew authorities were the Herod’s. (There were three members of the family of Herod that figured in the life of Christ: Herod the Great, Herod Archelaus, and Herod Antipas.) The Egyptian rulers had been the Ptolemaic Pharaohs. (Ptolemy, the son of Alexander's general Lagos, was first established as the governor of the provinces of Egypt, but officially became the first Ptolemaic pharaoh of Egypt in 305 BCE).

            At the time of the Christ and His apostles on earth, the Roman Empire had conquered Egypt. The Egyptians referred to the emperor as the pharaoh. Augustus Caesar was emperor of Rome when Jesus was born. Augustus would have also been the official pharaoh of Egypt. Some speculate that they may have had a smaller unofficial pharaoh but the official pharaohs under the Roman occupation were the Roman emperors.

            I mention the above data because there was a marriage between politics and religion in the times of the Roman Empire. Christianity was being moved further and further from the compassionate concern of Jesus for the souls of all men and women. Even during the Lord’s presence, according to some secular history, the Jewish Herod’s, the high priests of the Temple, and the Sanhedrin Court were all offices up for sale to the highest bidder. Holding such religious authority was a political power move.

            Although not an acknowledged part of the canon of scripture the apocryphal book 1 Maccabees says this: “While representing him before the king, Menelaus outbid Jason by three hundred talents of silver and became the new high priest.” (See also 2 Macc. 4:23–24). Although we have no New Testament record of money exchanges involving later high priests, we do see the office being filled by political appointment (1 Macc. 7:8–9). (This information is part of the silent 400 years between the Old and New Testaments). The reference to Menelaus outbidding Jason took place during the Maccabean Revolt, 168 B.C. There is every reason to believe that over the next two hundred years things did not change much in holding the position of high priest. We do have a mostly negative perception of that office held by Caiphas in Matt. 26:3, 57. (See also Lk. 3:2; Jn. 11:49; 18:13-28 and Acts 4:6).

            In 313 A.D. we have the Roman emperor Constantine by political authority issuing the Edict of Milan. That decree granted Christianity legal status. By 606 A.D. we have bishop Boniface III being appointed as the first pope.

            I mention the above secular and scriptural data to set the tenor for the understanding of what Christianity had and was to become in the next few centuries. Again, just as Paul had said, ““I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you…” (Cf., Acts 20:28-29). So, bishops, elders, pastors, presbyters, shepherds (all meaning overseer of the church), had so mutilated the original intent and purpose of the Lord that the church was now in a state of apostasy. Perhaps in all of that history there were still faithful Christians worshiping as God had intended.

            Catholicism was not the commencement of the church of Christ. Christ was! The early disciples followed apostolic authority as had been granted them by the Lord, (Matt. 16:18-19). From that text, Peter was not the first pope. There never was an appointed pope in Christianity or in the church of God. Man manipulated the organization of the Savior’s body, (the church), into a political hierarchy. The church was then patterned after the Roman pyramid form of government with Caesar at the top, followed by senators, governors, (i.e., satraps), etc. The religious organization was reconfigured after the same pattern: Pope, cardinals, bishops, priests, etc. Phil. 1:1, however, gives us the scriptural formula for the church organization: “to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:” Note: “Bishops, deacons, saints (Christians),” that is it!        

            History has left people with the impression that Catholicism introduced the church and other religions did not organize until the time known as The Reformation Period, (A.D. 1517). From that acknowledged time allegedly all the denominations had their own beginnings. People would have us believe that we all trace our ancestry back to Catholicism, whereas the opposite is true. The church came first, then the perversion that resulted in a humanly, pyramid-style structure of religious traditions.

            To add insult to injury, groups accuse the church of Christ as being just another denomination and had its beginning, not in The Reformation, but in The Restoration. That movement did not occur until the early 1800’s. Again, the fact is that the church of Christ is not another denomination. It did not begin in the 1800’s but in the first century. Christians may have been swallowed up or overwhelmed by religious regression but the Lord providentially saw that the faithful continued to always go back to the Bible. God’s people have been somewhere since A.D. 33!

            In a secular book entitled The Popes, Vice, Murder, and Corruption in the Vatican authored by Brenda Ralph Lewis, who has written over 85 books, gives us a dark view of early religious practices after Christ and on into the Middle Ages, (i.e., 5th – 15th centuries). Particularly, on p 159 of her volume the following statements are made: “Since its earliest days, the Christian Church had had its breakaway groups, dissenters, sects, and schisms. But none of them equaled the major shift in faith that occurred during the Reformation, when the Protestant movement broke away from the Catholic Church…” This is what I am talking about. Lewis’s whole formula, analysis, and conclusion is based on the misconception that we all broke away from Catholicism! Not so!

            The author continues to say that “The fundamental break between the Protestant and Catholic faiths was set off on 31 October 1517 by Martin Luther, a German monk, theologian and university professor…” Luther of course is remembered for his tacking 95 thesis, (i.e., The Power and Efficacy of Indulgences) on a door. Luther’s proposal was scriptural. He opposed the Catholic doctrine of the sale of indulgences, particularly at that time for the purpose of raising money to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Luther’s argument was that only God could forgive sin, not a pope, a church, a monk, or a friar.

            Consider Mk. 2:7, “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone.” That text of course reveals an assumption by scribes. Verse 6 records, “they reasoned in their hearts.” The truth was and is that that same Jesus whom they ridiculed was God, in the flesh, coming to sacrifice His body and shed His blood for the sins of mankind. (See Eph. 1:7; Phil. 2:5-8). One cannot buy his/her way out of transgression.

            So, Catholicism grew out of a corruption of the New Testament church begun in A.D. 33. Protestantism was for the most was the resulted of what is called the Reformation Period. The church of Jesus and His followers called “The Way,” “Disciples,” “Christians” preceded either of those times.

            At the beginning of this article, I stated that the man took offense at me not recognizing him as a Christian. He said, “I am one, you just interpret it a different way.” That is what Catholicism did. That is what denominationalism did. In the man’s opinion and in the perspective of most of the rest of the world’s interpretation they all would be recognized as some type of Christian.

            As the old-time gospel preachers used to say, “Just because you call a dog’s tail a leg, it doesn’t make it a leg. He still has only four legs and one tail, regardless of what you want to call it. Merely calling a religious group a church does not make it one.” [The actual quote is credited to President Abraham Lincoln in a speech, “How many legs does a dog, (Lincoln borrowed from the story referencing a “calf,” not a dog] have if you call his tail a leg? Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn't make it a leg.”)

            Being a Christian is not a matter of Catholicism versus Protestantism or even Judaism. To be a Christian is to be a follower of Jesus Christ. That involves commitment, dedication, devotion, obedience, and love. It does not necessarily mean only identifying oneself with a religious, organized entity. The Lord ADDS one to His church, Acts 2:47. Heb. 5:9 states, “and having been made perfect, He became unto all them that obey Him the author of eternal salvation.” This is a necessary inference in that we conclude that if one DOES NOT OBEY HIM, He is not their “author of eternal salvation.”

            This is like the admonishment given by James in 4:4, “Ye adulteresses, know ye not that friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God.” The meaning is that if one is married to Christ, Eph. 5:25-32, yet still flirts with the world he/she is untrue to Jesus, the Husband. One may claim to be married to the Savior but if he/she is not obedient, faithful, and loyal, just saying they are part of the bride of Christ does not make it so. Again, calling a tail a leg does not make it one!

            Yet, in all this we have a “right to become a child of God,” (Jn. 1:12). The idea is to engage that “right” and obey the Lord, not merely render a lip-service of allegiance to a man-made concept of Christianity.

            Are you really a Christian? Are you truly married to Jesus Christ, a part of His bride, the church? Have you heard His word, believed it, repented of your sins, confessed Jesus as Lord, and been immersed in His blood? When you do these things the “Lord adds you to His church.” (Acts 2:47). He does not make you Catholic, Protestant or Jewish. He makes you simply a Christian and adds you to His collective body, (Eph. 1:22-23 & Col. 1:18, 24), “…the churches of Christ salute you,” (Rom. 16:16).