Church Fathers - Pastor Bruce Mejia

Now you seek to kill me, a man that has told you the truth, which I have heard of God,

this did not Abraham.

Is my mic on on here?

There we go.

Are we on now?

All right, cool.

The title of my sermon this morning is Church Fathers.

I want to preach on the subject of the church fathers.

I want to talk about what is the right position to have when it comes to the church fathers

and why I don't recommend Christians to reference them for matters of faith and practice.

Why we as Christians, as Bible-believing Christians, should not reference the church fathers in

order to substantiate our claims about the Bible or our practices in church.

Now what are church fathers exactly?

What does that refer to?

Well, church fathers is a historical term used to describe influential quote-unquote

bishops for the first eight centuries after the apostolic era.

These men are basically responsible for writing sermons, books, and dissertations

refuting heresies and false doctrines for those first couple centuries after the canonization

of the Bible and are often esteemed by many Christians today as being great men of the

faith and they will often look towards these church fathers in order to confirm that what

they believe is actually true or not.

But folks, the Bible says to prove all things, hold fast that which is good.

And if we want to know what we are supposed to believe as Christians, we got to go to

the Bible, right, not to some historical figure that existed a thousand years ago, hundreds

of years ago.

Yeah, are there people back in the day that believed right on salvation, believed right

on baptism, believed right on church practices?

Of course, but you know what?

We don't need to reference them in order to confirm what we believe is true.

Why?

Because we have the Bible.

We have the Word of God.

The Bible tells us that the Word of God is able to instruct us in ways of righteousness.

The Bible says that the Word of God can show us what God expects of us, what the standard

of the church should be.

It teaches us how to win souls to Christ, what the doctrine of justification is, what the

doctrine of the Trinity is.

And quite frankly, it doesn't matter if we came 1500 years after the fact, we still

have the timeless Word of God to instruct us in these ways, okay?

Now who are these church fathers?

Well, you have Clement of Rome, okay?

Clement of Rome is pretty much the earliest church father that most people would address

and talk about.

You have Ignatius of Antioch.

You have Polycarp.

These are basically some of the earliest church fathers that people reference.

You have Justin Martyr, Uranius, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian.

These are second and third century church fathers.

And then you have later church fathers such as Augustine, Jerome, and Chrysostome,

okay?

These are all men that both Protestants and Catholics will claim, okay?

So this is constant battle within mainstream Christianity as far as who belongs to who.

People will say, well, he was actually a Bible-believing Christian.

He actually agreed with us Protestants.

And then the Catholics will say, no, because if you look at some of his writings, it

very much resembles a lot of what the Catholic Church teaches.

And then here I come and says, who cares?

What these guys believe?

Who cares what side they were on?

And quite frankly, you know, I'm not really interested in the writings of people 1500

years ago, because 1500 years from now, people are going to go to a Barnes and Noble, right?

And in order to find out who is, who was the big deal, who was the big shot back in

the 1500 years ago, and I guarantee you none of us are going to be on those shelves.

It's going to be, you know, Joe Olstein.

It's going to be all these heretics and false prophets, because those are the

ones that people are promoting the most, okay?

But luckily we have the Word of God, and we don't need to address or reference these

Church Fathers in order to see, well, am I really interpreting this correctly?

Is this really correct?

You know, instead of going to the Church Fathers, let's go to God the Father, amen?

Instead of going to some dude from hundreds of years ago, why don't we just stick

to the Holy Spirit that can show us all things?

You know, that's why the Bible tells us that he gave us the Holy Spirit,

which is the Spirit of Truth, to enlighten us to the truth and what the Bible says

about these things.

So it's essentially a title used to express the idea of spiritual ancestry.

And this is basically what the Pharisees were doing in John chapter 8.

John 8 · chapter mention

We have Abraham to our Father.

It's not like, well, hey, this is what the Bible says.

This is what the Old Testament is addressing.

This is what the Old Testament states.

No, they're constantly going towards tradition, and then they're using their

so-called ancestry to Abraham in order to lend veracity to who they are as the

Pharisees and the spiritual leaders of that day.

But of course, we know that they were not of Abraham.

And quite frankly, even if there was a Church Father that agreed exactly like

us, we should still disregard it.

Why?

Because it becomes too fluid at that point.

You can probably point to certain things in their writings that disagree

with us doctrinally.

So people can magnify those issues, magnify those differences, and say,

well, yeah, but look what they taught here about baptism.

You know, yeah, he said justification is by faith alone, but look what he says

about baptism.

Look how he uses the term priest.

Look how he uses the term about the church services or whatever it may be.

He seems to lean more towards being a Catholic.

That's why it is a fool's errand to reference these Church Fathers.

Because at the end of the day, there were fallible men, whether saved

or unsaved, there were fallible men.

And quite frankly, you know, I'd rather just go to the infallible word of God

because it's not going to contradict itself.

The Bible does not contradict itself, right?

All of Scripture is given by the inspiration of God.

It's profitable for doctrine for proof of correction and instruction in righteousness.

And you know, I'm not saying that every single Church Father was unsaved

or a heretic.

What I'm saying is, I don't care, okay?

And what I'm saying is not worth referencing them

when we already have a superior resource known as the word of God.

They are inferior resources to address and use to substantiate our claims, okay?

Because they're fallible men.

And at the end of the day, you know, I'm not for apostolic succession.

That's not my thing. That's not our church's thing.

You say, what? You're not for apostolic succession.

Yeah, I'm for biblical succession.

Meaning that if there's a church out there that lines up with the Bible,

then that church basically can trace its spiritual roots back to the 1st century AD churches.

Because it lines up with the word of God, okay?

And so Catholics and Protestants alike, you know, they like these teachers

because they believe that they help them to shape and instruct

succeeding generations in proper church practices and beliefs.

And so they're often referenced by them, okay?

And there's this constant battle between them as far as who belongs to who.

In my opinion, they both can have them.

Okay, I'm not interested in claiming one over the other.

I'm not really interested in that at all.

And keep in mind, okay?

People over here arguing about church fathers this and church fathers that.

How about the fact that Jesus said, call no man your father, right?

How about the fact that Matthew 23 verse 9 says,

Matthew 23:9

call no man your father upon the earth for one is your father, which is in heaven.

So let's just start at the basics to say,

we shouldn't be calling spiritual leaders father.

You say, what do you call your dad?

I said spiritual leaders father.

It's obviously appropriate to call your biological father or father,

although most of us just call them dad, okay?

Matthew 23 in its proper context is referring to spiritual leaders,

those who call themselves pastors, bishops, reverend, whatever may be,

any type of church leadership position should not adopt the term father

because Jesus Christ strictly forbids it.

And you know, Catholics will look at something like that and say,

you know, what do you call your dad?

You know, fathers use so many times throughout the New Testament,

all in reference to that, okay?

Now, is there instances in the New Testament where spiritually

someone addresses someone as being kind of like a father to someone else

because they're discipling them?

Absolutely.

But there's never an instance in the New Testament

where someone in the church calls a church leader father, okay?

You know, though you have 10,000 instructors in Christ,

yet you have not many fathers.

That's what the Apostle Paul said.

And what he's referring to is the fact is that he begot them through the gospel.

He essentially spiritually birthed them by preaching the gospel to them,

getting them saved.

And so he's kind of like a spiritual father unto them.

Yet you don't have any instance in the New Testament

where any of Paul's converts call Paul father.

Father Paul.

You know, hey, Father Paul, what do you think about that?

Doesn't exist.

Why?

Because it's not a biblical term to use for spiritual leaders, okay?

And so, you know, I'm against using that term,

but just for the sake of the sermon,

so you know what I'm talking about,

I'm going to be calling them the church fathers

because that's what Catholics and Protestants address them as.

They're not my church father.

They're not, I don't view them as my spiritual ancestors at all.

And so, you know, I'm just using it for the sake of the sermon here.

So we as a church do not uphold apostolic succession.

We believe in biblical succession.

Look for a church that sides with the Bible.

Look for a church that lines up with the doctrines of the Bible.

It doesn't matter how old that church is.

And look, you can find a church today that's 100 years old

and a lot of them are just heretical.

They're completely heretical.

You know, you could even find the first Baptist church somewhere

that's been around for 100 plus years.

It doesn't give them credibility, okay?

They just had more time to apostasize and believe false doctrine.

I'm not saying all of them are like that

because there are definitely churches out there

that are the first Baptist church

that remain loyal to doctrine and to the Bible.

I'm just saying, you know, having longevity

doesn't equal authenticity, doesn't equal credibility

because you just have more time to get into heresy.

Okay, go to Mark chapter seven if you would.

Mark chapter seven.

Mark chapter seven.

I'm going to give you some reasons

why we as Christians should not reference the church fathers.

Okay, this morning I want to talk about that.

Reason number one is because of the fact

that it undermines the authority of the Bible.

Referencing church fathers often undermines,

subverts the authority of the scriptures.

Even though people claim, oh no,

we believe that the Bible is the word of God.

We believe it's the final authority

but referencing the church fathers kind of cements that.

It helps to validate that.

It helps to confirm that.

Well, you know what?

I know what I believe according to the Bible

and I don't need any outside source

to tell me if that's true or not.

Now make no mistake about it.

There are certain things and parameters

that God has used in order to teach us people.

Obviously he uses local New Testament churches, right?

He uses the Holy Spirit.

We have the word of God.

We have older men in the faith.

But at the end of the day,

God commands all of us to search the scriptures daily

to see if these things are so.

It's not like, well, we'll just take this person's word for it.

I'm just going to believe what this person says,

just blindly follow this individual

because they're so popular,

because they're so esteemed in mainstream Christianity.

No, I got to see what they're saying

and yet they may have some credibility

but at the end of the day,

I need to open up the Bible and say,

well, is that what the Bible actually says though?

And if we go, there's like,

that's a contradiction of the Bible

then we no longer follow that individual.

Why? Because the Bible is the final authority.

The problem with church history

and referencing church fathers

is that people claim to believe in the Bible

but what they actually do

is they uphold the teachings of the church fathers

slightly more than the Bible itself.

In other words, the Bible can clearly say something like,

call no man father.

Oh, but because you have so many church fathers

that use this in their writings,

in their dissertations,

then we must be misinterpreting that verse.

What is that?

That's called subverting the Word of God.

Because look, folks,

you don't need to go to the original Greek

to know what Jesus meant by that.

It's not hard.

If you know English, you know what it says.

All right.

Now, if you're ESL, I get it,

but most of the time,

people can read Matthew chapter 23

Matthew 23 · chapter mention

and understand, okay,

I know exactly what it means by this.

I don't need to go to the original language.

I don't need to know what the Bible says about that

or excuse me, what some commentary says about that,

what some lexicon states in the original language.

I can go to the Word of God

and see what Jesus clearly said,

and I'm going to stick with that.

Whereas what people do,

they'll read Matthew 23.

Well, let's see what the church fathers say.

Well, that's interesting.

The church fathers are constantly calling the bishops

father.

They're constantly giving this commentary

about this, that, and the other,

and then it's like,

well, maybe I'm just misinterpreting that.

Well, now you have officially

subverted the Word of God, okay?

Look at Mark 7 verse 5, if you would.

Mark 7:5

It says,

Is that what it says?

So what is he saying?

You know, it sounds like the Pharisees

who claim to be spiritual descendants of Abraham

and even physical descendants

are saying, why are you contrary,

not to the Word of God,

but to tradition, right?

He says in verse 6,

He answered and sent unto them,

Well hath desire prophesied of you hypocrites,

as it is written,

This people honoreth me with their lips,

but their heart is far from you.

How be it in vain they do worship me,

teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

For laying aside the commandment of God,

ye hold the tradition of men

as the washing of pots and cups

and many others such like things you do.

So notice, according to verse 8,

because they uphold the traditions,

it causes them to lay aside the commandments of God.

And what traditions are we referring to?

The traditions of the elders.

In other words, because they esteem these elders,

it's causing them to undermine the commandments of God.

And this is what we see today.

You can have a portion of scripture

that clearly addresses salvation,

clearly addresses the Trinity,

clearly addresses what baptism is all about,

but because you have these elders,

these people from 1500 years ago

saying something different,

then people just go with that.

Well, there are more spiritual back then.

Well, they just knew the Lord better back then.

Well, they just have more credibility back then.

And so we're just misinterpreting that.

That's why we need to go to this.

And look, folks, you can go to,

let's just talk about Protestant churches.

You have Protestants out here,

and these Protestants are basically Catholic zero.

It's just diacathic is what it is.

You know, you'll have these Protestants out there.

I've seen videos of Protestants online,

and if you hit the mute button,

you think it's a Catholic.

You say, why?

Not because of how they sound,

but because of how they look.

They got the little collar thing going on,

like the Catholic priest,

how many of you know what I'm talking about?

I mean, just Lutherans that do that stuff.

And you're kind of like,

why are they dressing like that?

Why do they look like that?

And then if you unmute them,

they talk like Catholics.

They talk like Catholics,

they look like Catholics,

and they practice like Catholics as well.

And I'm going to explain why that isn't just a bit.

But these people come up with all kinds of weird ideas

like head coverings, for example.

You know, they'll talk about,

oh, women are to wear head coverings,

you know, the head doilies over the head.

And when you demonstrate what the Bible actually says

about that and how a head covering

simply referring to a woman's long hair,

you know what they do?

They go to the church fathers.

They go to church history.

Well, here's the thing though,

so you're trying to disregard 1500 years of church history?

Yeah, because it contradicts the Bible.

Yes.

You know, people try to shame you for that.

Oh, so what, you know more than 1500 years of church history?

Yeah, the part that contradicts the Bible, yes.

Because it's crazy how you can have

what the Bible clearly says about head coverings

in the Word of God

and still decide to put on some doily

on your head thereafter.

You understand what I'm saying?

But all of a sudden, because you have

all of these prominent church leaders,

prominent figures of yesteryear,

just promoting head coverings and doilies on the head,

we just got to completely disregard

what the Bible explicitly says,

which is that it's referring to long hair.

You understand what I'm saying?

What is that?

That's laying aside the commandment of God

in order to hold to the tradition of men, okay?

And I've literally gotten to conversations

with people about this.

You know, I went preaching in Texas earlier this year

and, you know, a guy came up afterwards

and he's just like, hey, I love your stuff, man, it's great.

Love the stuff on the Jews, it's great.

But how come no one in here is wearing a head covering?

And automatically, you know, you just know.

You're like, oh, he's one of those.

I'm like, because the Bible doesn't teach it.

What do you mean?

It says it, right?

So we're going through the scriptures

and then I'm showing him, according to the first Corinthians,

that it's referring to long hair on women.

And then he's like, so you're just

going to disregard church history?

Like, whoa, how come we just moved on from the Bible?

Hold on a second.

I just showed you from the Bible,

you completely disregarded it,

and then now you just want to talk

about church history in order to substantiate your claim.

Why is that?

Oh, that's right, because it undermines the Bible.

That's why.

So someone can claim to believe in the Bible,

but let me just tell you something.

Once they just completely reject

the explicit teachings of Scripture,

just mark it down.

They don't believe in the Bible.

They uphold the traditions of the elders.

Okay?

It says in verse 9,

he said unto them,

full well ye reject the commandment of God,

that ye may keep your own tradition.

For Moses said,

honor thy father and thy mother,

and whoso curseseth father or mother,

let him die the death.

But ye say, if a man shall say to his father or mother,

it is Corbett, that is to say a gift.

But whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me,

he shall be free.

And ye suffer him no more

to do ought for his mother,

for his father or his mother,

making the word of God of none effect

through your tradition,

which ye have delivered

and many such like things ye do.

So he's saying, look,

you have this clear commandment in the Bible

to honor your parents,

but then you find all these loopholes

not that are found in the Bible,

that you made up according to your tradition.

And what happens,

you make the word of God

of none effect through your tradition.

Okay?

Meaning that the Bible can just explicitly say something,

but as long as you have a group of people agreeing

on the interpretation of that,

that that's not what it actually means,

then you can just make the Bible say whatever you want.

You can make the Bible say that long hair

actually means doilies on the head.

Now, I'm going to get into this in just a bit,

but, you know,

one of the big things regarding church fathers

that everyone disagrees on,

and this is why, again,

it's not worth addressing church fathers

is this matter of baptism.

Yup.

That's a huge thing,

because you will have these church fathers

that claim to believe in salvation by grace through faith,

they claim to believe in the right salvation,

but they're baptizing babies.

What's up with that?

I don't want to, you know,

get ahead of myself,

but come on,

if you're having people baptize babies

or justifying the baptism of babies,

talking about baptism,

you know, entertaining the idea of baptizing babies,

that should be disregarded.

That's like basic stuff.

Super basic.

Go with me.

If you went to 1 John chapter 2,

1 John 2 · chapter mention

1 John 2,

while you're turning them,

I'm going to read to you from Titus chapter 3 verse 9,

Titus 3:9

the Bible reads,

but avoid foolish questions

and genealogies

and contentions

and strivings about the law

for they are unprofitable and vain.

Listen to this.

A man that is a heretic

after the first and second admonition reject,

knowing that he that is such is subverted

and sinneth

being condemned of himself,

the Bible says.

And this applies to church fathers.

You read about a church father,

he's saying right things,

but then he says some really bad stuff.

Oh, I'm done with this guy.

Oh, done.

Oh, not interested.

Oh, he baptizes babies.

I'm not interested.

Oh, he's encouraging others

to baptize babies, not interested.

Oh, I hear Catholic stuff in here,

not interested.

Oh, but if you read Catholic stuff,

doesn't that mean that maybe the Catholic Church

was the first church?

No, they're just some of the first

heretical churches that existed.

Okay.

Well, how do you know that?

Well, how about the fact

that the Bible doesn't talk about Catholicism?

Right.

Yeah, but church history.

Here's my church history.

You know, it starts off somewhere,

maybe in Matthew chapter 15 or 16.

Matthew 15 · chapter mention

You can see it explicitly laid out

in the book of Acts.

That's what we need right there.

Yeah, but we were talking about something else though.

Something outside of the Bible.

Why do you need something outside of the Bible?

When you have it clearly,

God spent so much time

putting a Bible for you together,

66 books to instruct you

in the ways of righteousness

and how to administrate

a local New Testament church.

Why do we need some outside source

in order to validate that?

Look at 1 John 2, 27.

Now, this is my favorite verse to use

when Catholics say,

you think you have the authority

to interpret the Bible.

Who gave you the authority

to interpret the Bible?

What gives you the authority

to rightly divide the word of truth like that?

Well, 1 John 2, 27.

But the anointing which he have received of him

abideth in you

and yeet me not

that any man teach you.

Who gave you the,

apparently the Holy Spirit that dwells within me

gives me the authority.

Okay, and again,

you quote this to a Catholic

and they'll say, well, you know,

so you think you're interpreting correctly?

Why don't you just address

what the Bible actually says?

Okay, he's saying here

that the Holy Spirit

which is the anointing

is referring to the Holy Spirit

that dwells within us.

He abides in us.

He leads us into truth

and we need not that any man teach us.

We don't need a centralized institution

in this world in Rome

to teach us what the Bible actually says.

He says, but as the same anointing

teacheth you of all things

and is truth and is no lie

and even as it hath taught you

ye shall abide in him.

So according to the Bible,

the Holy Spirit of God is sufficient

to lead us into all truth.

Now, obviously,

there are instances

where, you know,

you have a babe in Christ

and they can't understand

everything of the Bible

which is why God provides

local New Testament churches.

And he gave some apostles

and some prophets

and some pastors

and some evangelists

and some teachers

for the perfecting of the saints

for the work of the ministry,

for the edifying of the body of Christ.

Later on, he says

that we henceforth be no more children

tossed to and fro

carried about with every wind of doctrine.

You say, well, isn't that an institution?

Yes, but they have to align, though.

Meaning what the pastor is saying

from the pulpit

has to align

with the Holy Spirit

showing you from the Bible.

If they don't,

either something wrong with you

or something wrong with me.

But here's the great thing,

you know,

let's just say,

let's just pretend

there's something wrong with me

and you're like,

well, this is contradicting

what the Bible actually says.

Then go somewhere else.

And guess what?

Someone can go somewhere else

and you're still a safe person.

There's no teaching

that if you leave this church,

you lose your salvation.

There's no teaching

that if you leave the one true church,

there's no salvation

outside of the one true church.

If you don't participate

in the Mass here,

if you don't participate

in what's going on here,

then you're not really saved.

That's heresy.

The Bible tells us

that he gives us

these spiritual leaders

to teach us all these things

and that we can prove all things

whole fast without which is good,

according to the Holy Spirit

that abides within us.

Isaiah chapter 8,

Isaiah 8 · chapter mention

you don't have to turn there.

Go to Acts 20, if you would.

Acts chapter 20.

Acts 20 · chapter mention

Isaiah chapter 8 in verse 27,

Isaiah 8 · chapter mention

excuse me,

verse 20 says,

to the law and to the testimony,

if they speak not according

to this word,

it is because there is no light

in them, the Bible says.

If they're not speaking

according to this word,

according to the Bible,

it is because there is no light in them.

And keep in mind,

no prophecy of the scripture

is given of any private interpretation.

Holy men of God speak

as they're removed by the Holy Ghost.

We can clearly see

what the Bible tells us

and judge it for ourselves.

So why is it important for us

not to reference church fathers?

Well, number one,

because it causes people

to undermine the Bible.

People have this idea

that if a group of people

all agree together

on one doctrine,

it must be true

regardless if the Bible

explicitly teaches the opposite.

And that's not right, my friends.

That is not right.

It's not right

to just go with the multitude

and just because

a bunch of people online

believe it.

And look,

definitely don't just go

with the multitude

just because people on Instagram,

everyone on Instagram believes it.

Oh, there's so many people

that believe this doctrine

or it must be true.

That's not the way you test things.

You test it based

upon the word of God.

And look, folks,

at the end of the day,

there's instances

where few people

believe the actual truth

on things.

And you might be the minority.

Doesn't mean you're wrong.

It means everyone else is wrong.

So how do you know?

Well, how about this?

Broad is the way

that leads to destruction.

Many there be which

go in their app.

The vast majority of people

in this world

are going to believe

in false gospel.

And so it's important

for us to recognize this

that the Bible needs

to remain the supreme authority

in our personal lives

and in the life of our church.

You're in Acts 20.

Point number two,

as to why we should not

reference church fathers

is that it implies,

listen to this,

it implies proximity

to the apostles

equals accuracy

in doctrine

and in practice.

So people are like,

yeah, but you know,

these guys were there

from the start though.

Like these church fathers,

they're from 95 AD,

100 AD, 200,

even 300 AD.

And here you are

in your little

storefront office building

Pastor Bob in his little

office building

little proddy

you know,

and you think you have authority,

these guys were actually there.

What are they implying?

They're implying that

because they're so close

to the inception

of New Testament churches

that automatically equals accuracy.

That automatically equals authority.

That automatically means

don't question what they're saying

because what they're saying

is actually true.

They were there.

Okay.

Now what are they also implying?

They're implying that,

you know,

someone can be there

and it doesn't matter

if they go apostate

because many of them did,

by the way.

Churches went apostate,

Christians went apostate,

people in the,

even before the Bible was finished,

people went apostate.

You know what that's showing me?

It doesn't matter

how close someone is

to the apostles.

They can become heretics too.

Look at Acts 20 verse 27.

Acts 20:27

For I have not shun

to declare unto you

all the counsel of God

and I want you to notice this

in verse 28.

Take heed therefore

unto yourselves

and to all the flock

over the which the Holy Ghost

had made you overseers

to feed the church of God

which he had purchased

with his own blood.

So what is the Apostle Paul

doing here?

He's actually addressing

a group of pastors

from Ephesus

because Ephesus had many elders.

Elders is a pastor.

These are terms

that are used interchangeably.

You have elder,

you have pastor,

you have bishop.

These are all used to describe

the shepherd.

And he's basically addressing them,

he's instructing them

because he's not going to see them anymore.

And he's telling them,

hey, you need to make sure

that you take heed unto yourselves

and what does it mean by that?

He's basically referring to the fact

that they need to make sure

that they're giving attendance

to reading to excertation

to doctrine.

That they're giving heed

to spiritual matters

and that they're feeding

the flock of God.

In other words,

they need to make sure

that they're nourishing

up their congregation

in the Word of God.

Why?

Why is that?

Verse 29.

For I know this

that after my departing

shall grievous wolves

enter in among you

not sparing the flock.

So he says,

look, you need to make sure

you educate the churches,

teach them doctrine,

feed the flock of God,

show them what the Bible says.

Why?

Because when I'm gone,

false prophets are going to come here

and they're going to try

to devour and eat up

the congregation of God.

How?

By teaching them false doctrine.

By misleading them.

By teaching for doctrines

the commandments of men.

You know, the Apostle Paul said

in 1 Timothy chapter 4,

1 Timothy 4 · chapter mention

then in the latter times,

you know, the spirit speaketh

expressly that in the latter times

some shall depart from the faith

giving heed to seducing spirits

and doctrines of devils.

So he's like,

I know that when I'm gone,

once the leader's gone,

it's going to,

there's going to be a vacuum

and you're going to have

false prophets coming into

the congregations

trying to mislead people.

Here's the kicker.

Verse 30.

Also of your own selves

shall men arise

speaking perverse things

to draw away disciples after them.

Isn't that interesting?

So he says there,

not only will people seek to infiltrate,

let me just tell you,

people have already infiltrated.

In fact,

you're not only going to have people

coming out from the outside,

you're going to have people being

raised up from the inside

who apostasize

to draw away disciples after them.

And look folks,

you know,

I don't believe for a second

that the Roman Catholic Church

was the first church

that Jesus Christ established

for a second.

And this is why I'm not

a reformer.

This is why I'm not a Protestant.

Why?

Because they believe

the vast majority of them believe

that the Roman Catholic Church

started off good

and then deviated from the faith.

It's like, what?

Like they're good at one point.

They started off right.

It was the true church at one point

but now they got into

Mariology and all those stuff.

They were not the true church.

They were never good.

Now here's my theory on it

and I can't be dogmatic about it

but here's my theory

based upon what the Bible teaches

is that you have

people who went apostate

from local biblical New Testament churches

and then essentially

branched off to becoming

the Roman Catholic Church.

During that particular time

you have the Roman pagan gods

and they are basically intermingling with them

using the same statues,

using the same temples

just pretty much amalgamating Christianity

with paganism

and that's why you have Roman Catholicism.

These are people who are coming up

out of the congregations

which is why you have Rome.

There is a church at Rome.

This is why people,

the church fathers,

are writing to Corinth.

They're writing to these churches

that existed during the first century AD

because these are people who have apostatized.

Oh, what gives you the right

to say that these people want apostate?

Because what they write

and what they say is contrary

to this right here.

This is the ultimate letter.

You're like, what about this letter?

Ultimate letter right here.

This is the standard.

So he specifically says

grievous wolves will enter in

and look, God forbid,

but it might happen to our church one day.

And when I say one day,

I don't mean in the near future.

If the Lord tarries,

let's just say a hundred years from now,

it's very possible

that First Works Baptist Church

can become an apostate church.

So how do you know that?

So how about Ephesus?

So how about a Smyrna?

So how about a Corinth?

How about a lot of the churches?

Why? Because people come from the outside,

people are raised up from the inside,

people apostatized,

they teach false doctrine

and lead the church into heresy.

Proximity to the apostles

does not mean

that they're accurate in everything.

It doesn't equal accuracy in doctrine

and in practice.

Turn with me if you would

to Ephesians chapter two.

Go to Ephesians chapter two.

Ephesians chapter two.

Forgive me if I speak fast,

but it's because I'm passionate about this.

I'm angry about this.

And I think this should be

important to Christians.

And we need to get back to

making sure that we

reference the Word of God first.

And disregard everything else,

especially if it contradicts

the Word of God.

Second Thessalonians two,

one says,

Now we beseech your brethren

by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

You're in Ephesians two.

And by our gathering together unto him,

that ye be not soon shaken

in mine or be troubled

neither by spirit nor by word.

Listen to this.

Nor by letter as from us

as that the day of Christ is at hand.

So the apostle Paul specifically

saying if you get a letter from us,

you know,

sign the apostle Paul.

Sign the disciple of the apostle Paul.

If it contradicts what I've previously taught,

disregard it.

Just because I was friends

with someone doesn't mean anything.

And look, I get it.

There's instances where

someone is referenced

and you know,

people are like,

Oh, you're just going to disregard this guy.

This guy was a disciple of John.

This guy was a disciple

of the apostle John.

But then you look into it and it's like,

this guy heard a sermon from John.

Like he might have heard him in person,

but they probably weren't friends.

It's just like 100 years later

someone comes out and they're like,

Oh, there's this writing.

You know, there's this comment.

There's this video.

And it's a guy who was a follower

of wild olive tree.

He followed him on Instagram.

They're super close.

You know, and while the olive tree

even liked one of his memes,

they must have been like this.

You know what I mean?

So this guy must be true or something.

Proximity doesn't equal accuracy.

Okay.

You know, and you know,

sometimes we like a post

because it's funny.

But then later on you actually click on the

click on the account and they're like,

Oh, dang, this guy's a heretic.

I didn't realize that.

You know, because you just,

you just doom scrolling, you know,

just doom scroll and then you see something funny.

I've accidentally liked a Catholic post,

believe it or not,

because it was a funny meme.

And I was just like,

I could went back and I'm like,

Whoa, this is scary.

Like, I can't believe,

I can't believe I did this.

Did you felt dirt?

I took a shower after,

you know, it's just like,

you just don't feel right.

But it's the same thing over,

you know, back then,

Oh, this person heard this John preach

or something like that,

or he followed John.

He was one of the people

who went to the church

and automatically they thought,

Oh, proximity must be true.

Must be accurate.

Not true.

Not true at all.

Now, how should we judge these things?

Look at Ephesians two verse 19.

It says,

Now there for a year,

no more strangers and foreigners,

but fellow citizens

with the saints and of the household of God

and are built upon the foundation

of the apostles and prophets,

Jesus Christ himself

being the chief cornerstone.

So when the Bible talks about

the foundation of the apostles and prophets,

it's not the rapture or anything

taking place really.

It's a train.

Okay.

They're just unloading.

When it talks about the foundation

of the apostles and prophets,

there's two ways to interpret

the interpret what this means.

The first interpretation could mean

that this is talking about the fact that

the apostles laid a doctrinal foundation

for New Testament churches, right?

They basically went to the churches.

This is how we're supposed to do things.

They laid the foundation,

taught them how to start churches,

and so forth.

And there you have it,

which is a good interpretation.

That would be a valid explanation of this.

Another explanation,

and that would lead more towards this one,

would be that the foundation

of the apostles and prophets

is referring to Jesus Christ

because he is the foundation.

First Corinthians chapter three,

for other foundation can no man lay

than that which is laid,

which is Jesus Christ.

In other words,

if you are a Christian,

or if you claim to be a Christian,

you better make sure you have

the right salvation at the foundation.

Salvation by grace through faith.

If you don't,

anything you build upon it

is completely faulty.

It does not matter.

It does not count in the eyes of God

because you got to make sure

you have the right foundation,

which is Jesus Christ.

That is a valid interpretation of this

because he says the foundation

of the apostles and the prophets,

the prophets referring to the Old Testament,

they were all built upon

the foundation of their faith in Christ.

Understand?

So Jesus Christ is the foundation

for salvation.

Everyone agree?

He's the foundation

for everything else

and needs to be built upon

the right salvation,

the right gospel,

the right doctrine of justification.

But then it says this,

Jesus Christ himself

being the chief cornerstone.

Now what does that refer to?

A cornerstone

is the first stone that is laid

that essentially offers

the pattern for every other stone

that comes thereafter.

Okay?

So Jesus is not only the foundation

for salvation,

he's also the one

that we're supposed to reference

thereafter on how we build

upon that foundation.

Okay?

So if there's a stone

that's a little off,

we look at it and we're like,

oh, this doesn't match up

the cornerstone.

Do it again.

Every single stone

that is laid thereafter

upon this foundation

that claims to be laid

upon the foundation of Christ

needs to be examined

in light of the cornerstone,

meaning does it contradict

Jesus Christ

and his writings and the Bible?

Right?

So in other words,

you know, if we look at someone

who claims to be built

on the foundation of Jesus,

okay, given.

Now what is he building?

Let's look at the building,

not the physical building.

Talk about the doctrinal building,

the practical building thereafter.

Let's see what they're building.

If it doesn't match up

with the cornerstone,

it needs to be disregarded.

Completely disregarded.

Looks like a pyramid

needs to be disregarded.

Looks like a temple,

a Mayan temple,

needs to go.

Oh, but they claim to be built

on the foundation.

Yeah, but they're not following

the chief cornerstone though.

Because Jesus Christ,

he says here

that we're built upon

that foundation of salvation,

but also the chief cornerstone.

We need to make sure

that everything aligns up

with the Bible

because Jesus is the Word of God.

Okay?

It says,

in whom all the building

fitly framed together

groweth unto an holy temple

in the Lord

in whom ye

also are built together

for an habitation of God

through the Spirit.

What's the point?

You know,

referencing church fathers

is a fool's errand

because many of the church

fathers don't align

with the cornerstone.

You look at what they read.

Oh yeah, justification by faith.

Okay, check.

Hold on a second.

Is this baptized babies?

Ain't nothing about that

in the Bible.

This building needs to be

disregarded.

You know how old

this building is?

I don't care about your cathedral.

That doesn't,

doesn't, I'm not impressed

by buildings.

I'm not impressed by

you know, the outward adorning

of the sepulcher

that looks beautiful

on the outside

but within are full

of dead men's bones.

I'm not interested in that.

I'm interested

if the building

actually lines up

with the cornerstone.

Does it line up

with what the Word of God

teaches?

And this is how

we're supposed

to judge things, my friends.

Don't judge it

based upon popularity.

Don't judge it

based upon how many,

how many sermons

and how many books

and how many dissertations,

how much,

you know,

acclamation they receive

from mainstream Christianity,

we need to judge it

based upon the cornerstone.

Does it match up

with what the Bible

actually says?

And you know what,

people seem to forget

that just because

something is close

to the first century AD,

automatically that means

that they can't go apostate.

Remember in Revelation 2,

Jesus is like

threatening the church

at Ephesus.

He's like,

repent or I'll

take away your candlestick.

This is before the Bible

was even finished.

He's already threatening

churches and saying,

if you don't fix this,

I'm going to remove

your candlestick.

And basically,

they're not going

to be a church anymore.

And you know,

eventually it's possible

that like Ephesus

did repent

and they got it right.

But let me just tell you

right now,

that candlestick

eventually was removed.

Why?

Because you can go over

there right now.

That's not a biblical church.

You can go to Ephesus

and see the church at Ephesus

and you know,

these people who claim

that you know,

this is the

original church of Ephesus

in Asia Minor,

what you see in the Bible.

But it doesn't match up

with the cornerstone

so it needs to be disregarded.

And look folks,

that's why it's important

for us not to emphasize

relics.

Oh, but the relic though,

this is where

baby Jesus was born.

That's a hole

that some Jews

cut out in the wall

in order to full

dumb Christians

into thinking that's

where Jesus was born

to make some money.

That's all it is.

And I'm not saying

all the biblical sites

there are not the legitimate ones

that you visit.

But let me just tell you,

if a Jew is telling you that,

you're just kind of like,

I don't know.

This is a splinter

of the original cross.

It's just like,

I don't know.

How many of those

you've given out?

This is the original

holy water.

Did you say holy?

Okay, yeah, I'm done.

It doesn't fit the cornerstone.

This thing is holy water.

You know,

oh man,

this is the original building.

Who cares?

The building

holds no supernatural capability.

You come in,

especially this building,

nothing supernatural

about this physical building here.

That which is supernatural

is sitting in the pews,

amen?

You know,

that which is supernatural

is the natural

that has been given,

thus supernatural,

which is the new man.

This building

doesn't have the new man.

Okay, there is no new man

in this building.

It's a physical building

where we're supposed to meet.

And so,

you know,

it's important for us to realize

like,

oh man,

and look,

is it cool to go to biblical sites?

Yeah, it's cool to go to.

I want to go to Cyprus,

okay,

in Greece.

I don't really want to go to Israel.

Just be honest with you.

You know,

it's not really my thing.

You know,

I know there's people who are like,

oh,

I want to go to Israel

and see all the biblical sites

and

it's just going to be so great.

Why?

There's all kinds of

Christ rejecting Jews there

who don't like,

you might get spit upon.

You know,

and it's not going to be a pleasant.

And all they're doing is just,

you know,

going to make money off of you

because you believe

that this pile of sand

has something to do with the Bible.

And again,

I'm sure there's biblical sites there

that are legitimate or whatever,

but I'm not buying into

that's where Jesus was born.

I'm just not going to buy into that.

Right, right.

And you go in there

it's just like,

ultra-orthodox.

Right, it's just like,

this is where Jesus was like,

why does it look so pagan?

And I know people are offended at that.

you know,

Catholics have this tendency to just like,

honor

like literally an amputated hand.

Like this is the hand of Jude.

It's like my grave robbers here.

What the heck?

Someone literally like dug up this,

this body.

That's morbid.

And it's just like,

oh, and then,

you know,

you, you bring that up

and they're like,

well, what about,

you know,

Elisha,

you know,

his body had power.

And you know,

once they put

the man's body on top of him,

it revived.

No one's come back to life

because of Jude's hand.

The only thing that's really amazing

about that hand

is how many people believe

that it's actually supernatural.

The only power that it has

is the power of disillusion.

Okay.

Or excuse me,

delusion.

You know,

it has the power of delusion,

as the power to deceive,

as the power to lie,

and to cause people to believe

that it has some sort of

capability from God.

You know,

they're all the skull

of Mary Magdalene.

It's crazy.

And so just because

someone is close

to a skull,

to a grave,

to a building,

to the apostles,

doesn't mean they're accurate.

The Bible says in Colossians

chapter two,

you don't have to turn there,

but go with me for word

to Acts 15,

Acts chapter 15.

Acts 15 · chapter mention

Acts chapter 15.

Acts 15 · chapter mention

I'm going to read to you

from Colossians two,

verse eight says,

Beware, lest any man spoil you

through philosophy

and vain deceit,

after the tradition of men,

after the rudiments

of the world,

and not after Christ.

What is he saying?

If someone is trying to

lead you away

from the cornerstone,

you need to be aware of that.

Beware of the tradition of men.

Don't esteem these things

as being

authoritative,

supernatural,

if it's not cut

exactly like the cornerstone.

So point number two

is that proximity

to the apostles

does not equal accuracy

in doctrine

and in practice.

This is why we should not

reference church fathers.

Number three is that

if you reference church fathers,

it can weaken

your doctrinal position.

It can weaken

your doctrinal position

when you reference

church fathers.

Why? Because if you're referencing

them, you esteem them

and they're going to say

something different than you.

And they're going to say

it better than you.

They're going to use

all these terminologies

and so many people

are going to agree with them.

You know what's going to

cause you to do?

Compromise on your

doctrinal positions.

That's a fact.

Okay.

Now look folks,

even before the Bible

was canonized,

you had apostles.

Listen to me.

There are apostles

who are wrong.

Yes, that's true.

And you know,

oh, I can't believe you said that.

It's true.

Because they're fallible men.

Let me give you an example.

James, the brother of Jesus.

I'm going to talk about

the half-brother of Jesus.

Talk about close proximity.

Bro, grew up with him.

He grew up with the Lord Jesus Christ.

He's his younger brother,

you know.

And you know, it's likely,

let me say this,

it's likely because they share

you know, the same mother.

It's likely that he might have

kind of resembled him a little bit.

It's very likely, right?

That's how it is sometimes.

You know, I have half siblings.

Some of them look like me.

I'm the better version,

but you know, they kind of look like me.

There's some resemblance, right?

It's likely that he did.

He's close.

And in fact, he is the pastor.

James was the pastor

of the first church in Jerusalem.

A church that ran like 5,000, 6,000 people,

like a large church.

People esteemed him.

He was, but you know what?

He was wrong in a lot of ways.

In fact, he was responsible

for causing the church of Jerusalem

to only reach Jews.

Now no one questions that

because it's James.

Oh, but that, but yeah,

but that was James.

So what?

He's disobeying the Lord's command

to reach all people,

to go into Jerusalem,

Judea, Samaria,

and the utmost parts of the world.

The church of Jerusalem

is primarily reaching Jews.

So what's wrong with that, you know?

Well, first of all,

I'm against just having

a church of just

one particular ethnic group.

I talked about that last time, right?

But you say why?

Because the Bible commands

is to go everywhere

and to reach everybody, okay?

But also when you're only

reaching Jews,

the likelihood of heresy

infiltrating church increases.

And the church of Jerusalem

became Judaized.

Now it's interesting

over the fact that,

you know,

when are they first called Christians

in Jerusalem?

No, in Antioch.

Antioch came after the

church of Jerusalem.

I mean, that has to say something there.

So their first call is like,

why are they first called

Christians there?

There's Christians in Jerusalem

at the church of Jerusalem.

They got the apostles there.

It all started there.

Why aren't they called

Christians there?

It's probably because

they've been Judaized.

Influenced by Jews.

Pharisees are there.

They're teaching heresy.

They've gone astray

in a lot of ways.

Now, why don't we use

him as an example

of what to do?

I'll tell you why,

because he's clearly

disobeying the Word of God

by allowing these people

into the church.

Look at Acts 15,

Acts 15:1

verse 1, it says,

And certain men

which came down

from Judea,

taught the brethren,

and said,

except ye be circumcised

after the manner of Moses,

ye cannot be saved.

So that's damn double heresy.

It's weird.

And it's like,

you guys got to be circumcised

if you want to be saved.

And it's like,

what about my wife?

How's it work for the girls?

But this is what they're teaching.

Now, these are

dandable heretics, right?

Verse 2 says,

When therefore Paul and Barnabas

had no small dissension

in disputation with them,

they determined that Paul

and Barnabas

and certain other of them

should go up to Jerusalem

unto the apostles

and elders

about this question.

Skip down to verse 5.

But there arose

up certain of the sect

of the Pharisees

which believed

saying that it was

needful to circumcise them

and to command them

to keep the law of Moses.

And the apostles

and elders came together

for to consider

of this matter.

So what do you have here?

They're like,

these heretics come,

they're like,

hey, if you want to be saved,

you got to be circumcised.

And Paul and Barnabas are like,

what?

Let's go talk to James

and them about this.

They get there.

There's Pharisees

in the church.

And I want you to notice

that it says

which believed.

What does that mean?

Means they're saved.

Okay.

They believe in the right salvation.

And I don't know

why these guys are talking.

Like,

I'm sorry.

Would you say long rope?

Like, you're not in this conversation.

You still are like,

you're still abiding

by, you know,

you're still abiding

by your old ways.

Your car is of a Pharisee

but you believe.

And they're coming up

and they're saying,

well, you know,

it's needful to circumcise them

and what they're basically saying

is like to believe.

Obviously, it's only by faith in Christ.

But they're saying,

but you should still circumcise them

and command them

to keep the law of Moses.

But that's unlawful.

It's not according to the Bible.

No, they don't need to be circumcised.

And no, they don't need

to keep the law of Moses.

This is something that's

being imposed upon them

through a Pharisee

who according to the Bible

was saved but was off.

Now James should have said,

hey,

no one asked you.

Like, who asked you?

That's wrong.

No, we're not going to do that.

Tell them they don't have to

get circumcised.

They're good.

That time has passed.

You know, this is what the Bible says.

Circumcision availeth nothing

and neither uncircumcision.

You know, this is what

the Word of God says.

He was the leader.

Skipped down to verse 23.

As the leader,

that's what he should have said.

Looking for verse 23.

And they wrote letters

by them after this manner.

The apostles and elders

and brethren

send greeting unto the brethren

which are of the Gentiles

and Antioch and Syrians, Celestia.

For as much as we heard

that certain which went out

from us have troubled you

with words subverting your soul

saying ye must be circumcised

and keep the law

to whom we gave no such command.

It seemed good unto us

being assembled with one accord.

You know, this council,

they're getting a council together.

They're getting a little

a group together

to discuss this matter,

to send chosen men unto you

with our beloved Barnabas and Paul.

Men that have hazarded their lives

for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We have sent them therefore

Judas and Silas

who shall also tell you

the same things by mouth.

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost

and to us to lay upon you

no greater burden

than these necessary things

that ye abstain from meats

offered to idols

and from blood

and from things strangled

and from fornication

from which ye keep yourselves

ye shall do well,

fare ye well.

So what's going on here?

James hears this and is like

no, we're not going to circumcise them

but we do need to do something

about Gentiles.

And so what James is doing

is he's making another set of rules

for Gentiles.

Okay?

Now abstain from fornication?

Yeah, everyone has to abstain

from fornication.

What do you mean?

Everyone has to abstain from blood.

What are you talking about?

Everyone has to abstain from idols.

Why are these rules

only being imposed upon the Gentiles

as though it's some sort

of separate commandment for them?

I'll tell you why.

It's because James is trying

to compromise here

to please his Jew buddies.

That's why he's doing it.

Whereas this should even be

a conversation.

They're integrating

to the new covenant.

This is the New Testament.

This is what we have to do.

Now what is the point of this?

The point is,

is that when you allow

elders, church fathers,

people of reputation

as the Apostle Paul called them

in Galatians chapter 2

Galatians 2 · chapter mention

to have a voice

to influence doctrine,

it tempts people

to compromise a little bit.

There's a pastor recently

who used to run with churches

like ours,

Fundamental Baptist,

and now he's getting

all onto church history,

he's getting into the church

fathers,

and now he's like,

yeah, I mean like,

Baptist,

I would think if someone

doesn't get baptized,

just kind of wonder

if they're saved or not.

It's kind of necessary

that they have to get

baptized to confirm that.

What?

And he's just like,

you could see why

they would believe these things

in the past

when you read their writings

or whatever,

and he's talking to this

Calvinist,

and the Calvinist

literally gives

the wrong interpretation

of James 2.

He's like, oh yeah,

faith that works is dead,

being alone.

You know,

faith works is a byproduct

of faith,

all this nonsense,

all this workspace salvation,

and the pastor doesn't

correct them at all.

He's just like,

yeah, you know,

like baptism,

I would say,

you know,

if someone chooses,

they have the opportunity

to be baptized,

and they don't,

and they just kind of

question their salvation.

But what?

You're like,

do you think that guy's a

heretic?

I know that he's a heretic.

Whether he's saved or not,

doesn't matter.

But that's what happens,

my friends.

When you get into church

history,

the church fathers,

you know what that means?

It's you start compromising.

Well, you know,

all these people

believe you have to be

baptized

in order for salvation.

I don't agree to get

baptized for salvation.

Let me find some middle

ground where I can appease

both the Jew

and the Gentile.

He's being like James,

where he wants to

placate both sides.

Don't placate anybody.

Serve the Lord Jesus Christ.

And if no one agrees

with you,

that's tough on them.

So what?

You guys are all wrong.

Case closed.

You know,

and look,

folks,

when it comes to the

subject of the baptism,

this is a major thing.

When it comes to the

church fathers,

it's probably one of the

main reasons.

I don't

reference them at all

because their belief

on baptism.

You know,

we have people come

to our church

and they're like,

well, you know,

there's just some good

church fathers out there

and, you know,