June 25, 2025 • 18 mins
Episode Title: "Was the Church Hijacked After Constantine?"
Series: Not Against Flesh and Blood – Ep. 1 Episode Description: Was the Church of Christ hijacked by Rome after Constantine? Or is that just a popular myth used to prop up modern interpretations? In this premiere episode of Not Against Flesh and Blood, we tackle one of the most common (and misleading) narratives in anti-Catholic circles—the claim that true Christianity disappeared after the 4th century. We explore the Council of Nicaea, the role of Constantine, the Arian controversy, and what the early Church actually believed. We also ask:
Series: Not Against Flesh and Blood – Ep. 1 Episode Description: Was the Church of Christ hijacked by Rome after Constantine? Or is that just a popular myth used to prop up modern interpretations? In this premiere episode of Not Against Flesh and Blood, we tackle one of the most common (and misleading) narratives in anti-Catholic circles—the claim that true Christianity disappeared after the 4th century. We explore the Council of Nicaea, the role of Constantine, the Arian controversy, and what the early Church actually believed. We also ask:
- Can we trust the Church that gave us the Bible?
- Was the Nicene Creed a corruption or a clarification?
- What do modern Evangelicals assume about history that might not hold up?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Tired of wandering from church to church hoping someone finally
got it right, watching for.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Wolves, avoiding false teachers. So was I.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Then I asked what the earliest Christians actually believed, and
I found the church Christ build.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
This is the Crossairs. Let's go back to the beginning.
Welcome to the Crosshairs.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Today's episode is based on a verse that reminds me
that when we have issues with other people, it's not
based in the physical realm, but in the spirit. Here's
the verse from Ephesian six twelve, for our struggle is
not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against
the authorities, against the powers of this dark world, and
against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
(01:05):
This is an episode rooted in love for the truth,
not a desire to prove anyone wrong. It's about engaging
with bad theology, not bashing people. I'm not here to
get personal. I'm not naming names or erring anyone out.
I'm here because there are real teachings out there that
sound spiritual, that sound edgy or biblical, but are actually misleading,
historically inaccurate, and in some cases even gnostic. Where only
(01:28):
a few select teachers claim to possess hidden knowledge or
divine an insight that the church somehow missed for two
thousand years. That kind of thinking isn't just arrogant, it's dangerous.
It creates spiritual dependence on personalities instead of trust in
the faith once delivered to all saints, and ultimately, these
teachings are unhelpful for anyone genuinely trying to follow Christ's
(01:51):
Christ with clarity and humility. Recently I asked a few respectful, challenging,
historically grounded questions in a group by it and been
part of for years. I had initially commented directly on
the group leader's posts, hoping for a thoughtful response to
the claims being made in their teachings.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
When I got nothing, I.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Figured maybe my comments had just been overlooked, so I
brought the questions into the group discussion itself. My goal
wasn't to be rude or confrontational. I genuinely wanted to
clarify the stance they were putting forward and see how
others in the group understood it. I simply asked, where's
the historical evidence for the claims being made? What are
we assuming about scripture and the church that maybe we
(02:31):
need to re examine.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
I got no answers, just silence.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Upon waiting for a response from anyone, I was promptly
removed without so much as a reply. I was in shock.
Had I'd said something wrong? Didn't my question not make sense?
Was it really too much to ask for historical clarity?
This didn't seem like the response a Christians should give.
Since when do we ignore people's questions and just silence them?
(02:56):
Isn't the church supposed to be a place where questions
are welcomed, tested and answered in love? And it hit
me some theological positions don't get defended, they just get protected.
If your system can't handle being question then you don't
have a solid foundation. You have a castle made of
sand and it will collapse. That experience was the spark
(03:17):
for this episode, because if I felt silence for asking
these questions, I can only imagine how many other Christians
have been shut down or confused by similar narratives, especially
those raised in Evangelical or Protestant environments that assume the
Catholic Church was corrupt for the moment it stepped into
public view.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
So here's what we're doing today.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
We're going to unpack one of the biggest claims in
anti Catholic circles that the Church was hijacked after Constantine,
that real Christianity went underground, that Roman Catholicism is just
a baptized form of pagan empire building. Let's dive into
this myth and ask the hard questions, not with anger
but with confidence. Part one, the claim the Church was
(03:59):
highjen after Constantine. Let's start by clearly laying out the claims.
It usually goes something like this. The early Church from
Pentecost to around the fourth century was pure, underground and
focused on Jesus alone. In three point thirteen eighty, Constantine
legalized Christianity with the Edict of Milan. From that point forward,
(04:20):
the Church got corrupted by Roman politics. The Council of
Nicia in three twenty five AD finalizes corruption by introducing
man made doctrines like the Trinity.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
And forcing uniformity through imperial power. Sound familiar.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
You might not have heard it all laid out like that,
but versions of this idea are everywhere in Protestant slash
evangelical spaces. It's implied when people say things like I'd
just follow the Bible, not tradition or the real church
is the persecuted church, or even the Roman Church had
had added to the Gospel. But ask yourself, is this
(04:54):
assumption based on scripture or on a post Reformation narrative
that was inherited without being examined.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Let's test the logic here.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
Was the Holy Spirit active in the church only until
the fourth century did Jesus fail to preserve his bride
the moment she became visible and influential? Can we really
trace a faithful remnant that looks like modern evanjugalism all
the way.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Back through history?
Speaker 1 (05:17):
If the early Church was supposedly hijacked, then who preserved
the canon of scripture you use today? And if the
early church believed in a premillennial reign of Christ, which
some argue as the plain reading of Revelation, then why
did the majority of the church gradually move away from
that view? And what does that say about the reliability
of so called plain reading? Was Augustine wrong for seeing
(05:37):
the thousand yurane as symbolic?
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Or is it.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
Possible that the early premillennial interpretations weren't doctrinately fixed but
were open to deeper spiritual insights as the church grew
in maturity. More importantly, do we get to define what
counts as original Christianity based solely on isolated interpretations, or
do we trust how the Holy Spirit guided the Church,
which over time to understand the mystery more fully. These
(06:03):
are questions that don't get asked enough, and frankly, they
should be step one when someone suggests church went off
the rails the moment it stopped hiding in the caves.
So let's get into the next layer. What was actually
happening at Icia? Part two? What Nicia was really about?
The Council of Nicea in three twenty five AD wasn't
(06:25):
a Roman plot. It was a theological rescue mission. Christianity
had just been legalized, not made the state religion that
would come later in three eighty a d with the
Edict of Thessalonica. In three twenty five, the Church was
still recovering from intense persecution under emperors like Diocletian. Christians
had been beaten, burned, and thrown into thrown to the lions,
(06:46):
while communities had worshiped in secret, risking their lives for
the Eucharist. So what happened Arius, a priest from Alexandra,
began teaching that Jesus wasn't equal to God, that he
was created a kind of super being but not truly divine.
This caught fire and the Church had a serious problem.
If Jesus isn't fully God, then the Gospel falls apart.
(07:09):
How can a creature reconcile Us to the Creator. How
can someone who isn't eternal offer eternal life? How can
we worship Jesus if he isn't God. Isn't that idolatry?
The Church needed clarity. The unrest caused by the Aryan
controversy had not only divided believers, but had begun to
disrupt the peace within the empire itself. Recognizing this, Emperor
(07:31):
Constantine called for the Council of Nicia not to lure
over it or dictate doctrine, but to allow the bishops
of the Church to handle this growing doctrinal crisis and
restore unity among Christians. Constantine wasn't baptized until near his
death and didn't see himself as a theological authority. His
role was political, stop the division, preserve peace. It was
(07:53):
the bishops, many of whom bore scars from persecution, who
gathered in Nicia and took up the task of defending
the Aposto faith and answering the question that threatened to
tear the Church apart. These weren't politicians. Many bore physical
scars from persecution. They didn't come to compromise. They came
to confess. And what did they affirm? That Jesus Christ
(08:15):
is God from God, Light from light, true God, from
true God, begotten, not made consubstantial with the Father. They
defended what Christians had always believed. Going back to the Apostles,
the nice In Creed wasn't innovation, it was preservation.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Now here's the twist.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Many Protestants today still recite the Nicing Creed, but have
we actually listened to what it says. Here's the Nicing Creed,
word for word. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible,
and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son
of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, light
(08:53):
from light, true God, from true God, begotten, not made
of the same essence as the Father. Through him, all
things were made for us and for our salvation. He
came down from Heaven, He became incarnate by the Holy Spirit,
and the Virgin Mary and was made human. He was
crucified for us under ponscious pilate. He suffered and was buried.
(09:14):
The third day he rose again. According to the scriptures,
he ascended to heaven and is seated at the right
hand of the Father. He will come again with glory
to judge the living and of the dead. His kingdom
will never end. And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life. He proceeds from the
Father and the Son, and with the Father and the
(09:34):
Son is worshiped and glorified. He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We
affirm one baptism for the figiveness of sins. We look
forward to the resurrection of the dead and to life
in the world to come.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Amen.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
So ask yourself, if the Church was corruptified three twenty five,
why do you affirm a creed written by those supposedly
corrupted bishops. If the Nicene Creed can't be trusted, how
can you trust the New Testament canon, which they also preserved.
Are you using their Bible while rejecting their authority. That's
a hard question, but it's one worth asking Part three,
(10:14):
continuity versus conspiracy. Let's talk continuity. When someone says the
church was hijacked, what they're really saying is Jesus failed
to keep his promise. In Matthew sixteen eighteen, Jesus said,
I will build my church and the gates of Hell
shall not prevail against it. Did he mean that or
was he only talking about the first three hundred years?
(10:36):
Because if the church got completely corrupted after Constantine, we
have some serious problems. Let's also take a step back
and consider the alternative that's often proposed. If the Nicean
Church was the corrupt one, then what does that make Arius,
the priest who denied Christ's full divinity? Was his understanding
that Jesus was created, not co eternal with the Father,
(10:56):
the so called faithful remnant? Is that what we're calling
the true church, because that's a position. The Council of
Nicia explicitly rejected the Church Father's condemned arianism, not because
they wanted political power, but because it undermined the very
core of the Gospel. So if you're saying the church
went off the rails after Nicia, you're either aligning yourself
with the theology the Church has always rejected or inventing
(11:18):
a completely separate timeline that can't be historically sustained. And
that's not recovery of the truth, that's historical revisionism. The
New Testament canon was finalized under the authority of that
same church. The Early Creeds were written and defended by
bishops who supposedly sold out. The Church's liturgy, sacraments, and
structure all took shape in that post Constantinian era. So again,
(11:42):
if you trust the Bible, why don't you trust the
church that gave it to you. If you think tradition
is corrupt, how do you know which books belong in
the Bible? If God preserved his word, why wouldn't he
also preserve as church. You can't throw out history and
keep only the parts that fit your system.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
That's theological cherry picking, not faith. Part four. What's really
behind this narrative. Let's be honest.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
This idea of church being hijacked after Constantine is attractive
because it gives you control. You don't have to trust bishops,
you don't have to wrestle with tradition, you don't have
to obey anything outside your own reading of the Bible.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
But here's the problem.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Scripture itself warns us not to rely on private interpretation.
In Tecod Peter one twenty, it says no prophecy of
Scripture comes from one's own interpretation. That means reading the
Bible isn't just about personal opinion or isolated insight. It's
about receiving what has been handed down, tested and faithfully
preserved through the Church. When we detach scripture from the
(12:42):
community and authority that gave it to us, we're not
being biblical. We're ignoring what the Bible actually says about itself.
But here's the danger. Scripture wasn't meant to function apart
from the church. The New Testament letters weren't written to
individuals alone. They were written to communities, clergy, and churches.
The apostles didn't just hand out Bibles and say figure
(13:03):
it out on your own. They appointed leaders, laid hands,
pass on authority. And let's not forget, no one even
had a personal Bible. For centuries, Scripture was copied by hand,
preserved in churches, and read aloud in liturgy. If you
wanted the Gospel, you went to the church. That was
the norm, the idea of every believer sitting with their
own Bible and privately interpreting it is a modern phenomenon.
(13:26):
In the early Church, the faithful received the Word through
the community, not in isolation. So here are some questions
I want you to really think about. Who told you
that just me and my Bible was the model of
the early church. A lot of people will bring up
the Bahreans and Act seventeen as an example of checking
everything against scripture. But let's remember they were examining the
(13:49):
Old Testament because the New Testament hadn't even been written yet.
They weren't comparing Paul's preaching to the Gospel of John
or the Letters of Paul. They were testing it against
the law and the prophets. And then they were doing
it together in the context of synagogue worship and instruction,
not as isolated individuals come into their own conclusions. So,
while yes, testing things against scripture is write and good,
(14:11):
using the Boreans to justify solo interpretation of a fully
formed Bible is anachronistic. It's reading modern assumptions into an
ancient setting. Can you find that model in scripture or
is that something we imported from modern individualism? Is it
more likely that the entire church fell into apostasy or
that your interpretation might be off. And here's another historical
(14:32):
fact to chew on. For the first fifteen hundred years
of Christianity, there was no such thing as Baptist, Pentecostal,
Calvary chapel, or non denominational churches. There was the Catholic Church,
the Eastern Orthodox, and various Eastern communions.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Like the Cops and the Assyrians. That's it.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
These were the churches handing down scripture, forming creeds, debating heresies,
and preserving the faith under persecution and hardship. So if
many modern evangelicals today claim they're trying to return the
early Church, we have to ask what early church are
they envisioning. The model they proposed is often framed as
a corrective, an attempt to appeal back layers of doctrine
(15:10):
they see as man made accretions and returns to something
more pure or biblical. That's understandable, but even then we
must ask, if this restoration was necessary, why didn't it
happen until fifteen hundreds. Did God leave his people in
doctrinal darkness for fifteen hundred years? Why were there no
Protestant churches for over millennium of church history. Why was
(15:30):
the faith preserved through Catholic, Orthodox and Eastern Ancient Eastern
communions alone? And here's another angle to consider what has
been the actual fruit of the Protestant Reformation. On one hand,
there were certainly benefits. Literacy rates rose, Scripture was made
more available when the vernacular and education became more widespread,
people were encouraged to read the Bible for themselves, and
(15:52):
there was a renewed emphasis on personal faith and conscience.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
But at what cost?
Speaker 1 (15:56):
The early reformers themselves Luther's Wingley calvin An agree on
fundamental doctrines despite claiming to follow scripture alone. Disunity emerged
almost immediately. And today what do we see? Thousands of denominations,
each claiming a plain reading of the Bible, often contradicting
one another. A new church pops up on every corner,
(16:17):
often started by someone who simply felt led after reading
the Scripture in isolation. This wasn't the model of the
early Church. And while the reformers aimed to strip away
what they saw as doctrinal excess, they also severed themselves
from the consistent witness of the historic Church.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
So again we have to ask, are.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
We recovering ancient Christianity or reinventing in every few generations.
These are sobering historical realities because while the Reformation may
have been borne out of real concerns, it also introduced
a fractured witness that didn't exist in the same way before.
So are we seeking continuity with the historic church or
creating something entirely new under the banner of restoration. It's
(16:58):
not an insult a serious question for anyone who believes
in solo scripture or Bible alone.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
I only need my Bible.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
Because once you admit that the early Church had structure, liturgy,
and authority, you're halfway to realizing that maybe the faith
wasn't hijacked. Maybe it just wasn't Protestant to begin with,
closing not flesh and blood. Here's where we land if
someone claims the church was hijacked after Constantine asked.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Who preserved the faith? Who preserved the Bible? Who preserved
the Gospel?
Speaker 1 (17:29):
Because you can't say God preserves scripture without preserving the
people he used to carry it. This isn't about winning debates.
It's about reclaiming confidence in the church that Christ founded,
the same church that stood firm and nicea that canonized
the New Testament, that carried the Gospel across centuries and continents.
So no, the Church wasn't hijacked. She was handed down
(17:51):
from the.
Speaker 2 (17:51):
Apostles to the bishops, to us.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
Let's keep defending her, not with pride, not with hate,
but with truth and love. If this helped you, challenged you,
or spark some new questions, share it with someone who's
been wrestling with the same stuff. Until next time, stay rooted,
stay bold, and keep crossing over
Tired of wandering from church to church hoping someone finally
got it right, watching for.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Wolves, avoiding false teachers. So was I.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Then I asked what the earliest Christians actually believed, and
I found the church Christ build.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
This is the Crossairs. Let's go back to the beginning.
Welcome to the Crosshairs.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Today's episode is based on a verse that reminds me
that when we have issues with other people, it's not
based in the physical realm, but in the spirit. Here's
the verse from Ephesian six twelve, for our struggle is
not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against
the authorities, against the powers of this dark world, and
against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
(01:05):
This is an episode rooted in love for the truth,
not a desire to prove anyone wrong. It's about engaging
with bad theology, not bashing people. I'm not here to
get personal. I'm not naming names or erring anyone out.
I'm here because there are real teachings out there that
sound spiritual, that sound edgy or biblical, but are actually misleading,
historically inaccurate, and in some cases even gnostic. Where only
(01:28):
a few select teachers claim to possess hidden knowledge or
divine an insight that the church somehow missed for two
thousand years. That kind of thinking isn't just arrogant, it's dangerous.
It creates spiritual dependence on personalities instead of trust in
the faith once delivered to all saints, and ultimately, these
teachings are unhelpful for anyone genuinely trying to follow Christ's
(01:51):
Christ with clarity and humility. Recently I asked a few respectful, challenging,
historically grounded questions in a group by it and been
part of for years. I had initially commented directly on
the group leader's posts, hoping for a thoughtful response to
the claims being made in their teachings.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
When I got nothing, I.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Figured maybe my comments had just been overlooked, so I
brought the questions into the group discussion itself. My goal
wasn't to be rude or confrontational. I genuinely wanted to
clarify the stance they were putting forward and see how
others in the group understood it. I simply asked, where's
the historical evidence for the claims being made? What are
we assuming about scripture and the church that maybe we
(02:31):
need to re examine.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
I got no answers, just silence.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Upon waiting for a response from anyone, I was promptly
removed without so much as a reply. I was in shock.
Had I'd said something wrong? Didn't my question not make sense?
Was it really too much to ask for historical clarity?
This didn't seem like the response a Christians should give.
Since when do we ignore people's questions and just silence them?
(02:56):
Isn't the church supposed to be a place where questions
are welcomed, tested and answered in love? And it hit
me some theological positions don't get defended, they just get protected.
If your system can't handle being question then you don't
have a solid foundation. You have a castle made of
sand and it will collapse. That experience was the spark
(03:17):
for this episode, because if I felt silence for asking
these questions, I can only imagine how many other Christians
have been shut down or confused by similar narratives, especially
those raised in Evangelical or Protestant environments that assume the
Catholic Church was corrupt for the moment it stepped into
public view.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
So here's what we're doing today.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
We're going to unpack one of the biggest claims in
anti Catholic circles that the Church was hijacked after Constantine,
that real Christianity went underground, that Roman Catholicism is just
a baptized form of pagan empire building. Let's dive into
this myth and ask the hard questions, not with anger
but with confidence. Part one, the claim the Church was
(03:59):
highjen after Constantine. Let's start by clearly laying out the claims.
It usually goes something like this. The early Church from
Pentecost to around the fourth century was pure, underground and
focused on Jesus alone. In three point thirteen eighty, Constantine
legalized Christianity with the Edict of Milan. From that point forward,
(04:20):
the Church got corrupted by Roman politics. The Council of
Nicia in three twenty five AD finalizes corruption by introducing
man made doctrines like the Trinity.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
And forcing uniformity through imperial power. Sound familiar.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
You might not have heard it all laid out like that,
but versions of this idea are everywhere in Protestant slash
evangelical spaces. It's implied when people say things like I'd
just follow the Bible, not tradition or the real church
is the persecuted church, or even the Roman Church had
had added to the Gospel. But ask yourself, is this
(04:54):
assumption based on scripture or on a post Reformation narrative
that was inherited without being examined.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Let's test the logic here.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
Was the Holy Spirit active in the church only until
the fourth century did Jesus fail to preserve his bride
the moment she became visible and influential? Can we really
trace a faithful remnant that looks like modern evanjugalism all
the way.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Back through history?
Speaker 1 (05:17):
If the early Church was supposedly hijacked, then who preserved
the canon of scripture you use today? And if the
early church believed in a premillennial reign of Christ, which
some argue as the plain reading of Revelation, then why
did the majority of the church gradually move away from
that view? And what does that say about the reliability
of so called plain reading? Was Augustine wrong for seeing
(05:37):
the thousand yurane as symbolic?
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Or is it.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
Possible that the early premillennial interpretations weren't doctrinately fixed but
were open to deeper spiritual insights as the church grew
in maturity. More importantly, do we get to define what
counts as original Christianity based solely on isolated interpretations, or
do we trust how the Holy Spirit guided the Church,
which over time to understand the mystery more fully. These
(06:03):
are questions that don't get asked enough, and frankly, they
should be step one when someone suggests church went off
the rails the moment it stopped hiding in the caves.
So let's get into the next layer. What was actually
happening at Icia? Part two? What Nicia was really about?
The Council of Nicea in three twenty five AD wasn't
(06:25):
a Roman plot. It was a theological rescue mission. Christianity
had just been legalized, not made the state religion that
would come later in three eighty a d with the
Edict of Thessalonica. In three twenty five, the Church was
still recovering from intense persecution under emperors like Diocletian. Christians
had been beaten, burned, and thrown into thrown to the lions,
(06:46):
while communities had worshiped in secret, risking their lives for
the Eucharist. So what happened Arius, a priest from Alexandra,
began teaching that Jesus wasn't equal to God, that he
was created a kind of super being but not truly divine.
This caught fire and the Church had a serious problem.
If Jesus isn't fully God, then the Gospel falls apart.
(07:09):
How can a creature reconcile Us to the Creator. How
can someone who isn't eternal offer eternal life? How can
we worship Jesus if he isn't God. Isn't that idolatry?
The Church needed clarity. The unrest caused by the Aryan
controversy had not only divided believers, but had begun to
disrupt the peace within the empire itself. Recognizing this, Emperor
(07:31):
Constantine called for the Council of Nicia not to lure
over it or dictate doctrine, but to allow the bishops
of the Church to handle this growing doctrinal crisis and
restore unity among Christians. Constantine wasn't baptized until near his
death and didn't see himself as a theological authority. His
role was political, stop the division, preserve peace. It was
(07:53):
the bishops, many of whom bore scars from persecution, who
gathered in Nicia and took up the task of defending
the Aposto faith and answering the question that threatened to
tear the Church apart. These weren't politicians. Many bore physical
scars from persecution. They didn't come to compromise. They came
to confess. And what did they affirm? That Jesus Christ
(08:15):
is God from God, Light from light, true God, from
true God, begotten, not made consubstantial with the Father. They
defended what Christians had always believed. Going back to the Apostles,
the nice In Creed wasn't innovation, it was preservation.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Now here's the twist.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Many Protestants today still recite the Nicing Creed, but have
we actually listened to what it says. Here's the Nicing Creed,
word for word. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible,
and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son
of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, light
(08:53):
from light, true God, from true God, begotten, not made
of the same essence as the Father. Through him, all
things were made for us and for our salvation. He
came down from Heaven, He became incarnate by the Holy Spirit,
and the Virgin Mary and was made human. He was
crucified for us under ponscious pilate. He suffered and was buried.
(09:14):
The third day he rose again. According to the scriptures,
he ascended to heaven and is seated at the right
hand of the Father. He will come again with glory
to judge the living and of the dead. His kingdom
will never end. And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life. He proceeds from the
Father and the Son, and with the Father and the
(09:34):
Son is worshiped and glorified. He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We
affirm one baptism for the figiveness of sins. We look
forward to the resurrection of the dead and to life
in the world to come.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Amen.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
So ask yourself, if the Church was corruptified three twenty five,
why do you affirm a creed written by those supposedly
corrupted bishops. If the Nicene Creed can't be trusted, how
can you trust the New Testament canon, which they also preserved.
Are you using their Bible while rejecting their authority. That's
a hard question, but it's one worth asking Part three,
(10:14):
continuity versus conspiracy. Let's talk continuity. When someone says the
church was hijacked, what they're really saying is Jesus failed
to keep his promise. In Matthew sixteen eighteen, Jesus said,
I will build my church and the gates of Hell
shall not prevail against it. Did he mean that or
was he only talking about the first three hundred years?
(10:36):
Because if the church got completely corrupted after Constantine, we
have some serious problems. Let's also take a step back
and consider the alternative that's often proposed. If the Nicean
Church was the corrupt one, then what does that make Arius,
the priest who denied Christ's full divinity? Was his understanding
that Jesus was created, not co eternal with the Father,
(10:56):
the so called faithful remnant? Is that what we're calling
the true church, because that's a position. The Council of
Nicia explicitly rejected the Church Father's condemned arianism, not because
they wanted political power, but because it undermined the very
core of the Gospel. So if you're saying the church
went off the rails after Nicia, you're either aligning yourself
with the theology the Church has always rejected or inventing
(11:18):
a completely separate timeline that can't be historically sustained. And
that's not recovery of the truth, that's historical revisionism. The
New Testament canon was finalized under the authority of that
same church. The Early Creeds were written and defended by
bishops who supposedly sold out. The Church's liturgy, sacraments, and
structure all took shape in that post Constantinian era. So again,
(11:42):
if you trust the Bible, why don't you trust the
church that gave it to you. If you think tradition
is corrupt, how do you know which books belong in
the Bible? If God preserved his word, why wouldn't he
also preserve as church. You can't throw out history and
keep only the parts that fit your system.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
That's theological cherry picking, not faith. Part four. What's really
behind this narrative. Let's be honest.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
This idea of church being hijacked after Constantine is attractive
because it gives you control. You don't have to trust bishops,
you don't have to wrestle with tradition, you don't have
to obey anything outside your own reading of the Bible.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
But here's the problem.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Scripture itself warns us not to rely on private interpretation.
In Tecod Peter one twenty, it says no prophecy of
Scripture comes from one's own interpretation. That means reading the
Bible isn't just about personal opinion or isolated insight. It's
about receiving what has been handed down, tested and faithfully
preserved through the Church. When we detach scripture from the
(12:42):
community and authority that gave it to us, we're not
being biblical. We're ignoring what the Bible actually says about itself.
But here's the danger. Scripture wasn't meant to function apart
from the church. The New Testament letters weren't written to
individuals alone. They were written to communities, clergy, and churches.
The apostles didn't just hand out Bibles and say figure
(13:03):
it out on your own. They appointed leaders, laid hands,
pass on authority. And let's not forget, no one even
had a personal Bible. For centuries, Scripture was copied by hand,
preserved in churches, and read aloud in liturgy. If you
wanted the Gospel, you went to the church. That was
the norm, the idea of every believer sitting with their
own Bible and privately interpreting it is a modern phenomenon.
(13:26):
In the early Church, the faithful received the Word through
the community, not in isolation. So here are some questions
I want you to really think about. Who told you
that just me and my Bible was the model of
the early church. A lot of people will bring up
the Bahreans and Act seventeen as an example of checking
everything against scripture. But let's remember they were examining the
(13:49):
Old Testament because the New Testament hadn't even been written yet.
They weren't comparing Paul's preaching to the Gospel of John
or the Letters of Paul. They were testing it against
the law and the prophets. And then they were doing
it together in the context of synagogue worship and instruction,
not as isolated individuals come into their own conclusions. So,
while yes, testing things against scripture is write and good,
(14:11):
using the Boreans to justify solo interpretation of a fully
formed Bible is anachronistic. It's reading modern assumptions into an
ancient setting. Can you find that model in scripture or
is that something we imported from modern individualism? Is it
more likely that the entire church fell into apostasy or
that your interpretation might be off. And here's another historical
(14:32):
fact to chew on. For the first fifteen hundred years
of Christianity, there was no such thing as Baptist, Pentecostal,
Calvary chapel, or non denominational churches. There was the Catholic Church,
the Eastern Orthodox, and various Eastern communions.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Like the Cops and the Assyrians. That's it.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
These were the churches handing down scripture, forming creeds, debating heresies,
and preserving the faith under persecution and hardship. So if
many modern evangelicals today claim they're trying to return the
early Church, we have to ask what early church are
they envisioning. The model they proposed is often framed as
a corrective, an attempt to appeal back layers of doctrine
(15:10):
they see as man made accretions and returns to something
more pure or biblical. That's understandable, but even then we
must ask, if this restoration was necessary, why didn't it
happen until fifteen hundreds. Did God leave his people in
doctrinal darkness for fifteen hundred years? Why were there no
Protestant churches for over millennium of church history. Why was
(15:30):
the faith preserved through Catholic, Orthodox and Eastern Ancient Eastern
communions alone? And here's another angle to consider what has
been the actual fruit of the Protestant Reformation. On one hand,
there were certainly benefits. Literacy rates rose, Scripture was made
more available when the vernacular and education became more widespread,
people were encouraged to read the Bible for themselves, and
(15:52):
there was a renewed emphasis on personal faith and conscience.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
But at what cost?
Speaker 1 (15:56):
The early reformers themselves Luther's Wingley calvin An agree on
fundamental doctrines despite claiming to follow scripture alone. Disunity emerged
almost immediately. And today what do we see? Thousands of denominations,
each claiming a plain reading of the Bible, often contradicting
one another. A new church pops up on every corner,
(16:17):
often started by someone who simply felt led after reading
the Scripture in isolation. This wasn't the model of the
early Church. And while the reformers aimed to strip away
what they saw as doctrinal excess, they also severed themselves
from the consistent witness of the historic Church.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
So again we have to ask, are.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
We recovering ancient Christianity or reinventing in every few generations.
These are sobering historical realities because while the Reformation may
have been borne out of real concerns, it also introduced
a fractured witness that didn't exist in the same way before.
So are we seeking continuity with the historic church or
creating something entirely new under the banner of restoration. It's
(16:58):
not an insult a serious question for anyone who believes
in solo scripture or Bible alone.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
I only need my Bible.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
Because once you admit that the early Church had structure, liturgy,
and authority, you're halfway to realizing that maybe the faith
wasn't hijacked. Maybe it just wasn't Protestant to begin with,
closing not flesh and blood. Here's where we land if
someone claims the church was hijacked after Constantine asked.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Who preserved the faith? Who preserved the Bible? Who preserved
the Gospel?
Speaker 1 (17:29):
Because you can't say God preserves scripture without preserving the
people he used to carry it. This isn't about winning debates.
It's about reclaiming confidence in the church that Christ founded,
the same church that stood firm and nicea that canonized
the New Testament, that carried the Gospel across centuries and continents.
So no, the Church wasn't hijacked. She was handed down
(17:51):
from the.
Speaker 2 (17:51):
Apostles to the bishops, to us.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
Let's keep defending her, not with pride, not with hate,
but with truth and love. If this helped you, challenged you,
or spark some new questions, share it with someone who's
been wrestling with the same stuff. Until next time, stay rooted,
stay bold, and keep crossing over
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!