Against Shawn McCraney, Noncommittal Christianity

the new uncommitted Christianity

In a 2003 article written by Shawn McCraney titled “Born-Again Mormon: Moving toward Christian Authenticity” McCraney expresses the need for Mormons to worship God as defined by evangelical Christianity.[1] His claim is published in a self published book documenting his fall from the LDS faith and rise in evangelical doctrines. His book, in the words of one born again reviewer, is a: “self-published book has no page numbers; hence, exact page locations of quotes used in the review will not be given. In addition, the book has many spelling, grammatical, and typesetting errors, all of which may make it difficult for the serious reader to consider McCraney's unique views.”[2]

Little McCraney does has anything to do with “Lifting up Authenic Christianity”[3] or anything close to it. Instead McCraney is narrow and dogmatic; McCraney will not be subject to examination and will not be subject to any authority beyond his own understanding. He regularly takes callers on his television show (where he presents himself as an authority on Christianity) who have questions about the Mormon Church. As we will see, McCraney’s stance on religion not only condemns Mormons, but also relegates The Holy Catholic Church and other pre-reformation churches to cult status. As seen in the letters reprinted in this text McCraney not only refuses to answer any questions about the Bible or the events in Christian history that preceded the standardized cannon he also becomes dismissive and cantankerous when examined.

The question is what is authentic? What was authentic before the Bible was standardized? If authentic Christianity came into being with the Bible it self then authentic Christianity and the actual life of Christ and the Apostles were separated by at the very least three centuries. What McCraney views as authentic Christianity is in fact an amalgam of protestant Christian doctrines and practices that bares no real root in Authentic Christian structure or tradition. The modern blend of Christianity bares no central structure, no ecclesiastical authority beyond an education certification or degree and no priesthood or apostolic authority. In McCraneys view the original church of Christ was “loosely knit”[4] and that God himself does not mind multiple interpretation of the same passage of scripture[5]. Beyond that McCraney told a caller to his TV program that only cults deal in absolute interpretations[6]. Only cults tell have an official interpretation, only cults will tell you exactly what a passage means.[7] He sees the word of the Lord to be a very liberal, fluid thing that changes in perception from reader to reader. McCraney others like him represent a buffet Christianity, one where a man can pass from congregation to another, searching for a silver tongued preacher to tickle their ears and entertain them.

If you really only find absolutism in cults, that makes the Catholic Church, who have definitive definitions and interpretations of scripture, a cult. The Catholics have the Pontiff who is the end all authority on matter concerning the church, the pontiff serves in a similar position to the Mormon Prophet who to is the final word.

Furthermore, loosely knit bodies unravel over time, as one Christian scholar points out: “… Church of Christ can no more hold together without officers, rules, and institutions than any other society of men.”[8] And Ignatius exhorts the pre-Bible saints to adhere to uniform obedience, a uniformity which cannot be achieved without definitive interpretation of written word or contemporary apostolic revelation, says Ignatius: “by uniform obedience ye may be perfectly joined together, in the same mind and in the same judgment and may all speak the same things concerning everything”[9].




Christian Agreement on the Life and Mission of Christ
McCraney and those like him also hold that it does not matter which church one attends because all Christian churches “agree on God, his life, his ministry and mission”[10]. Such historical revisionism is inexcusable from a pastor, even a self appointed one. To say that all Christian churches agree on the nature of God is deceiving, for it is impossible to say we agree on the nature of the Christ and on God yet we are divided on doctrine. If all Christian churches agreed on the life and mission of the Christ they would all be the same church for to understand the Christ is to understand his teachings.

Throughout the history of the Church the nature of the Christ has been a source of contention, even now the same holds true. Professor Bart D. Ehrman notes: “ In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus was both divine and human, God and man. There were other Christians who argued that he was completely divine and not human at all…there were other who insisted that Jesus was a full flesh-and-blood human, adopted by God to be his son but not himself divine….there were other Christians who claimed…Christ who had temporally inhabited Jesus body during his ministry and left him prior to his death, inspiring his teachings and miracles but avoiding the suffering in its aftermath”[11]

This fractionalization split the early church into groups each contending against each other in the name of Christ. For example among the earliest Christians there were at least two different Jewish Christian sects. Both of these sects depended on the gospel of Mathew, yet both heralded different understandings of the life and Mission of Christ. In the works of Von Tischendorf[12] we find: “From the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, we gather that thus early there was a Judaizing party. This party spirit broke out even more fiercely after the destruction of Jerusalem. There were two parties among these Judaizers; the one the Nazarenes, and the other the Ebionites. Each of these parties used a Gospel according to St. Matthew; the one party using a Greek text, and the other party a Hebrew. That they did not scruple to tamper with the text, to suit their creed, is probable from that very sectarian spirit. The text, as we have certain means of proving, rested upon our received text of St. Matthew, with, however, occasional departures, to suit their arbitrary views”[13] This is a singular example of the fact that those early Christians did not agree on the gospel of Christ. If we find this kind of divergence even during the time of the apostles how can it get better over time?

Later on Origen was considered the spokesmen of early Christian orthodoxy. During the years Origen worked his understanding of the Godhead was the standard followed by thousands. Origen writing late circa 150-228 AD taught a “doctrine of the pre-existence and the pre-temporal fall of souls (including the pre-existence of the human soul of Christ), of eternal creation, of the extension of the work of redemption to the inhabitants of the stars and to all rational creatures, and of the final restoration of all men and fallen angels… Origen propounded his views always with modesty and from sincere conviction of their agreement with Scripture, and that in a time when the church doctrine was as yet very indefinite in many points.”[14]
According to Origen
· God was the creator of all things, including Christ himself.
Christ as a being was created in the preexistence with all other intelligent beings.
All intelligences were given free will to worship or not.
Those who declined to worship God forever fell.
Spirits are put into the body before their redemption
Christ was the one intelligent being who stayed perfect to Gods will. Christ and God were one in will. Professor Bart D Ehrman notes concerning Origen’s Godhead “Just as Iron placed in a hot fire eventually takes on all the characteristics of the fire, this one (Christ) took on all the characteristics of God, became so infused with Gods wisdom that it became Gods wisdom, so infused with Gods word that it became Gods word”[15]
Christ was one with God, distinct in person but equal in righteousness, more importantly God created the world through Christ[16]
In total according to the orthodoxy for which Origen was celebrated Christ was SUBORDINATE to God, Christ was distinct in person but “less than the Father”[17]
Now according to McCraney such ideas are heretic, as he has stated in the past that Christ was the only preexistent being. But how did Origen achieve such high acclaim and status in the orthodox post apostolic church with teaching that were so divergent from the Trinitarian creeds of later Christianity?

More than a century later Origen was assigned the title of Heretic at a local council in Constantinople in 543 and his works on the God head were rejected. It is a curious thing that writings that were once orthodox were so quickly relegated to the trash heap by the same church that had once embraced them.
Origen was not alone in proclaiming the doctrine that Christ is a separate, distinct being from the Father and that they were one only in purpose and mission. In one proto- orthodox, anti-Gnostic text dated from the early to mid second century titled The Epistula Apostolorum (Epistle of the Apostles), Christ states: “I am wholly in the Father and the Father in me, because of the likeness of the form and the power and the fullness and the light and the full measure and the voice. I am the Word, I am become unto him…(Ethiopian texts reads) I am of his resemblance and form, of his power and completeness, and of his light. I am his complete (fulfilled, entire) Word.”[18] In this epistle Christ always refers to his Father as a superior being always denoting his own subordination: “it came to pass when I was about to come hither from the Father…then did I put on the wisdom of the Father, and I put on the power of his might…such power was given me of my Father…And so wrought I the likeness of my wisdom; for I became all things in all that I might praise the dispensation of the Father and fulfill the glory of him that sent me and return to him.”[19]

Christ here not only proclaims his subordination, but states that his power is derived from that power the Father allows him to have, and that he did not possess the fullness until after the atonement and resurrection. Says the Christ: “for verily I say unto you: like as my Father hath raised me from the dead, so shall ye also rise and be taken up unto the highest heaven…unto the place which he who sent me hath prepared for you…for so it is the will of my Father that I should give unto you, and unto them whom it pleaseth me, the hope of the kingdom…verily I say unto you, that I have obtained the whole power of my Father, that I may bring back to light them that dwell in darkness”[20]

Ignatius, one of the earliest of Christian writers also promoted the doctrine that Christ was a distinct and separate being from the father, according to Ignatius (abt 30 AD-110AD) Christ lived with the father in a glorious resurrected body: “But I know that even after his resurrection he was in the flesh; and I believe that he is still so” [21]

Here we find, to quote anti-Mormon literature, Christians teaching a “different Jesus” that is a variance with the post 325 ad Jesus and the modern nicean Christ/god of our day. Here Christ not only speaks of leaving his Fathers presence, he teaches that it was his Father who endowed him with power, his Father raised him from the dead, his Father, not Christ himself, prepared glory for the righteous, and finally Christ intends to return to the presence of his Father. All of this is applicable because it shows us that even in the post apostolic orthodox church of antiquity there was disagreement on the Life and mission of Jesus Christ.

The nature of Christ lays at the root of all doctrine therefore even the protestant churches of the reformation; at their very core disagree on who Christ is, on his mission and his doctrine. It should be obvious to all, that authentic Christianity, before the mass influence of the platonic theology and philosophy schools and before the standardized cannon of the Bible worshipped a very different Jesus from the one evangelical pastors sell today.


Organization of the Kingdom of God
In short there is not a once on authenticity in the whole religion as McCraney and others like him see it. McCraney has publicly stated that Christian churches “don’t need an organizational structure”[22] and Christian churches “don’t need a hierarchy”[23] It is amazing that men who reject all ecclesiastical and apostolic authority are so brazen in setting themselves up in the place of the authority they have spurned. This leaderless amalgam Christianity is at its core the expression of mans pride and vanity. It is vain to believe that by ones own wisdom, rendering and understanding one can derive truth and enact Gods will. To do so ignores the words of the God him self, as the Lord taught us “the wisdom of man is foolishness to god” [24] and “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”[25]

The Kingdom of God is ruled by the organized government of God. The Father created the universe, the stars, the atoms and all the things of his eternal creation, all of which are governed by Laws. The planets do not alter their own course; the stars do not move from place to place at the own whim and atoms do not break their appointed order. All of this being true how could the master organizer let his church become an ungoverned body of minds? How could the Lord turn over his established body, designed to glorify his children and retuen them to his presence turn the reigns over to men devoid of organization or official policy? Honest Christians agree on this premise, the great Phillip Schaff, one of the most prolific documenters in Christian history, commented extensively on the government of the early Church, he states: “The ministerial office was instituted by the Lord before his ascension… to be the regular organ of the kingly power of Christ on earth in founding, maintaining, and extending the church… It includes the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and church discipline or the power of the keys, the power to open and shut the gates of the kingdom of heaven, in other words, to declare to the penitent the forgiveness of sins, and to the unworthy excommunication in the name and by the authority of Christ.”[26] He Continues: “The internal call to the sacred office and the moral qualification for it must come from the Holy Spirit,[27] and be recognized and ratified by the church through her proper organs. The Apostles were called, indeed, immediately by Christ to the work of founding the church; but so soon as a community of believers arose, the congregation took an active part also in all religious affairs. The persons thus inwardly and outwardly designated by the voice of Christ and his church, were solemnly set apart and inducted into their ministerial functions by the symbolical act of ordination; that is, by prayer and the laying on of the hands of the Apostles or their representatives, conferring or authoritatively confirming and sealing the appropriate spiritual gifts.”[28]

Authentic Christianity was defined by a governing body which includes:
the preaching of the gospel (modern non-denominational churches defiantly preach a Gospel, however if you do not like one pastors view, feel free to sample the teachings of another like dishes at a buffet until your plate is filled with confections of your likeing)
the administration of the sacraments (is noticeably absent from modern religions)
church discipline or the power of the keys, the power to open and shut the gates of the kingdom of heaven, in other words, to declare to the penitent the forgiveness of sins, and to the unworthy excommunication in the name and by the authority of Christ. (Also noticeably absent from modern non-denominational religions. In modern religion there are no official acts required of the members, therefore no need to disperse sacraments, as there are no official divinely appointed leaders, only self appointed, there is no need for confession or repentance because there are none to hear the confession or over see the repentance, since these bodies do not play any role there is no need for excommunication because Christians are not bound to any higher authority or understanding than that of their own interpretation and conscience. many mega churches actually eschew the teaching against sin because it is a divisive subject…see Joel Osteen)
The internal call to the sacred office and the moral qualification for it must come from the Holy Spirit, and be recognized and ratified by the church through her proper organs. (also noticeable absent, today pastors receive a degree, which is bought with money, and set out to establish their own congregations. Their callings are not ratified by a body that pre-dates their establishment of the congregation, but rather their following is established after they receive their certificate. NO RELIGIOUS BODY EVER CALLED A SELF APPOINTED PASTOR TO SERVICE, AT NO TIME HAVE MOST MODERN PASTORS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE ENTIRE BODY OF THE CHURCH, NOR CAN THEY BE WHEN EACH CONGREGATION REPRESENTS A INDEPENDENT BODY RESPONSIBLE TO NO EVANGELICAL AUTHROITY.
Finally all those called into the service of the church, who were recognized and ratified by the church body, or as Clement says “with the consent of the whole Church”[29] had to be solemnly set apart and inducted into their ministerial functions by the symbolical act of ordination; that is, by prayer and the laying on of the hands of the Apostles or their representatives, conferring or authoritatively confirming and sealing the appropriate spiritual gifts. (again, modern pastors are not set apart, and most use perceived spiritual gifts for show. The spectacle of Benny Hinn like public healings with all the pomp and emotion are an insult to the humble honest miracles done in private by the Lord himself.)

All of these rites and ordinances are missing from the Christianity that McCraney and those like him call authentic. These things fall into the realm of priesthood authority which can only exist via apostolic succession or modern revelation. However, to men like our subjects, true apostolic authority and true priesthood are a direct threat to their self appointment, hence if the Bible is the soul authority by which they are governed they in fact have cart’ blanch to do anything they wish[30], any errors on their behalf can be rationalized away with rhetoric and personal scriptural interpretation.

Ignatius notes interestingly that: “for there are many wolves who seem worthy of belief, that with a false pleasure lead captive those that run in the course of God, but in the concord they shall find no place… as many as are of God, and of Jesus Christ, are also with their Bishop… for there is but one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ; and one cup in the unity of his blood, one altar. As also there is one bishop, together with his presbytery, and the deacons my fellow servants: that so whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to the will of God.” [31]
He Goes on to state that those who apostatize from the church “But the lord forgives all that repent, if they return to the unity of God, and to the council of the Bishop[32]

According to Ignatius those who were Christian were united to Christ through their bishop, and their was one true alter for worship, one cup of his blood and that members having left the church would repent and return to the “Council of the Bishop”.

In the light of history the church does not appear to be loosely knit as McCraney and others claim, it seems obvious “that no existing church can find any pattern or platform of its government in the first century, and thus strongly contrasts the apostolic and post-apostolic organizations”[33] in fact when we look at some of the earliest pre-canonical Christian writings we find the Christians being exhorted to be a unified and submissive people to appointed authority


Church organization according to Ignatius 30-107 AD and Polycarp 65-155 AD.

The priesthood is of course the organizing authority by which the Church is governed, and has been governed. The need for a coherent priesthood organization is eschewed by the evangelical community who instead teach of the priesthood of believers. The priesthood of believers does away with any central ecclesiastical authority, and instead deposits the authority of interperatating doctrine and governing the kingdom in the hands of self appointed pastors. In essence the priesthood of believers makes all of equal authority in the church. However, even among the twelve there was no total equality as the church was a hierarchal body. No one could claim the position of chief apostle, that position was filled by Peter (Mat 15:19). No one could claim the high seat of authority in Jerusalem as that was filled by James. To these men church leaders in lower offices turned for guidance. We also know that the church spread from Rome to Asia turned to the Apostles for clarification of doctrine and church government (see 1 Cor 7:1). The priesthood of believers does away with the ecclesiastical hierarchy that defined the ancient church. This lack of a central and final authority creates a shattered mirror effect, what once was a pristine reflection of heavenly government is now a million little reflections of different sizes and shapes.

Ignatius and the need for an official Priesthood authority.

The Letters of Ignatius provide us with a remarkable vision of the importance of an official Priesthood body. Ignatius would certainly be one to know as he himself had been ordained by the Apostle John to be the Bishop of Ephesus.[34] As one ordained by one of the Twelve he was in a unique position to discuss the organization of the church. The church confronted in Ignatius’s many letters is one of Hirearchy and order. According to the Bishop the Church branches were not established by men educated in schools and then provided with a certificate of divinity. According to Ignatius the Bishops of the Churches were appointed by the Lord himself by a definite line of authority: “For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is sent by the will of the Father; as the Bishops, appointed unto the utmost bounds of the earth, are by the will of Jesus Christ.[35]… For whosoever the master of the house send to be over his own household, we ought in like manner to receive him, as we would do him that sent him. It is therefore evident that we ought to look upon the bishop, even as we would do upon the lord himself.” [36]

Christ was sent by his Father and the Bishops are “appointed unto the utmost bounds of the earth…by the will of Jesus Christ”. Here we find no hint of self appointment, educational qualification or amalgomous indiscriminate priesthood but we have an appointment from the will of Jesus Christ. Ignatius tells the saints that the Lord chooses and sends those who will oversee his household, and thusly the bishops are to be received and looked upon as an extension of the Lord’s authority, not just a preacher.

The Authority of the Bishop

The Bishop governed the saints under his stewardship. He was the authority holder appointed by the “will of Jesus Christ” to the utmost bounds of the earth. All things done in the name of the Church were done under the authority of the Bishop; Ignatius says “Let no man do anything of what belongs to the Church separately from the bishop.”[37] Why could nothing be done in the Church without the Bishops approval? Because the Bishop was the appointed chosen of the Lord to govern the local Church; “whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing unto God; that so whatsoever is done, may be sure and well done.[38]”
The Bishop knew the will of God, not by consulting the Bible (which did not exist, much of it had yet to written or compiled) and deliberating about the path to take, for him to know what was pleasing to God would require direct revelation. Ignatius says that the Bishop sees that all things done in the Church are “sure and well done”. The bishop stood at the head of each branch to guide the members along a sure path.

Under the Authority of the bishop were new members baptized and sacrament was blesses and passed. In fact it was a violating of Church organization for anyone celebrate these rights without the Bishop “…it is not lawful without the bishop, to baptize, nor to celebrate the holy communion”[39]. All marriages were to be officiated “with the consent of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to Godliness”[40]

The importance of the official sacraments as administered by a duly ordained authority was important to the early Church. According to the Epistle of the apostles the following exchange takes place concerning the rites and authority: “And we said unto him: Lord is it then needful that we should again take the cup and drink? He said unto us: yeah it is needful, until the day when I come again, with them that have been put to death for my sake[41]…preach ye also and teach them that believe on me, and preach the kingdom of heaven of my Father. Preach ye, and they shall obtain faith, that ye may be they for whom it is ordained that they shall bring his children unto heaven”.[42]

A Definite authority structure

Ignatius exhorts the saints to respect the authority of the priesthood body in his many letters. He tells the Churches not only to respect the priesthood but to be subject and submissive to its authority. He councils them to be subject to: “Your bishop in the place of God (because the bishop is appointed by the will of God and there for is his representative) ; your presbytery in the place of the Council of the Apostles; and your deacons most dear to me being entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ[43]… Let there be nothing that may be able to make a division among you; but be ye united to your bishop, and those who preside over you, to be your pattern and direction in the way to immorality.[44] As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to him; neither by himself nor yet by his Apostles, so neither do ye do anything without your bishop and presbyters.”[45]

In another ancient text called I Clement, attributed to Clement of Rome he states “Our Apostles… appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave
instructions,190 that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them,191 or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed fom the ministry.”[46] Note that officers in the Church were only appointed with the consent of the whole Church and could not be replaced at the whim of the congregation.

Like wise Irenaeus, writing from 182 to 188 A.D. tells us that the Apostles had established a governing order in the Church saying: “It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the Apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the Apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times… For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.”[47]

Ignatius writing before 107 A.D., Clement writing in 95-96 A.D.[48], and Irenaeus writing between 182-88 A.D. all show that in the early Church there was in fact a priesthood body. Moreover Ignatius states: “it is therefore necessary that as ye do, so without your bishop, you should do nothing; also be ye subject to your presbyters, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope[49]… In like manner let us reverence the deacons as Jesus Christ and the bishop as the Father and the presbyters as the Sanhedrim of God, and college of the Apostles.[50]Without these there is no Church.[51] (Alt reading: “without these a Church is not called”)
It is telling that Ignatius states that without appropriate appointed Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons there is no Church, or that no Church is called without this priesthood organization.

Hermas on church organization

The Sheppard of Hermas provides another interesting example of ecclesiastical authority. Hermas was accepted as authoritative teachings and was utilized by church Fathers and like Barnabas was included in the Codex Sinaiticus. It is important to know that Hermas does not quote the New Testament, instead it speaks in authoritative direct revelation. The fact that Hermas receives revelation from an angel is important[52]. Not only does Hermas receive revelation from an angel, he is commanded to record the visions and deliver them to the church. Specifically he is told to deliver the recorded visions to Clement, why clement? Because only clement had the authority to deliver the visions to the church: “You will write therefore two books, and you will send the one to Clemens and the other to Grapte. And Clement will send his to foreign countries, for permission has been granted to him to do so”[53] Another translation states “…Clement shall send it to the foreign cities, because it is permitted to him so to do.[54] He is commanded to write books that would constitute new revelation. The early Christians embraced the ideas of new scripture and revelation.

The Epistula Apostolorum is another text that tells us about the order of the Kingdom.
In this wonderful orthodox text the lord speaks to the eleven apostles after the resurrection where they ask: “Wilt thou indeed forsake us until thy coming? Where can we find a master?” This sincere question makes sence seeing how until his traumatic murder at the hands of the mob he had been their constant. To this question Christ replies: Know ye not, then, that like as until now I have been here, so also was I there, with him that sent me?... I am wholly in the Father and the Father in me, because of (in regard of) the likeness of the form and the power and the fullness and the light and the full measure and the voice. I am the word.”[55]
After reassuring the eleven of his power and his position in relation to his father he delivers unto the eleven a charge in which he stresses that they are ordained of him to do his work, and in that work he is the head of the church still: “And this preach ye also and teach them that believe on me, and preach the kingdom of heaven of my Father, and how my Father hath given me the power, that ye may bring near the children of my heavenly Father. Preach ye, and they shall obtain faith, that ye may be they for whom it is ordained that they shall bring his children unto heaven.[56]
Christ then moves on to give them assignments. After his command for them to teach to the house of Israel he assures them that HE will endow them with “a power of my spirit, that ye may prophesy to them unto life eternal.” It is this power, this ordination with authority direct from Christ that allows them to prophecy and even teach, this power is not given to all, it has to come from Christ himself. “Go ye and preach unto the twelve tribes, and preach also unto the heathen, and to all the land of Israel from the east to the west and from the south unto the north, and many shall believe on the Son of God…and I will give you my peace, and I will give you a power of my spirit, that ye may prophesy to them unto life eternal. And unto the others also will I give my power, that they may teach the residue of the people”[57]
This power from the Lord entitled his ordained servants to be known as fathers, servants and masters of men. Christ is specific in this text that the door to his kingdom is baptism by the proper authority, says the Christ: “For verily I say unto you: whosoever shall hear you and believe on me, shall receive of you the light of the seal through me, and baptism through me: ye shall be fathers and servants and masters[58]… And ye shall be called servants, because they shall receive the baptism of life and the remission of their sins at my hand through you”[59]

In closing this section it needs to be noted that nowhere in scripture do we ever find the revelation or prophecy that in the last days the Lord will radically alter the structure of his kingdom. Nowhere does he state that the need for the aforementioned ordination and authority would ever run its course; though this is the claim of born again evangelicals like Shawn McCraney. Men of his mind are quick to denounce the error in the teachings of others yet proceed forward as if they are prophets in their own right, that their understanding of the bible is the word of God. Of such men Christ, speaking in the Epistula Apostolorum states: “But all they that have offended against my commandments and have taught other doctrine, (perverting) the Scripture and adding thereto, striving after their own glory, and that teach with other words them that believe on me in uprightness, if they make them fall thereby, shall receive everlasting punishment. We said unto him: Lord, shall there then be teaching by others, diverse from that which thou hast spoken unto us ? He said unto us: It must needs be, that the evil and the good may be made manifest; and the judgement shall be manifest upon them that do these things, and according to their works shall they be judged and shall be delivered unto death. [60]
“And there shall be many that believe on my name and yet follow after evil and spread vain doctrine. And men shall follow after them and their riches, and be subject unto their pride…but if there be any that confesseth that he belongeth unto the light, and doeth the works of darkness, such an one hath no defense to utter, neither can he lift up his face to look upon the Son of God, which Son am I. For I will say unto him: As thou soughtest, so hast thou found, and as thou askedst, so hast thou received. Therefore condemnest thou me, O man? Wherefore hast thou departed from me and denied me? And wherefore hast thou confessed me and yet denied me? hath not every man power to live and to die? Whoso then hath kept my commandments shall be a son of the light, that is, of the Father that is in me. But because of them that corrupt my words am I come down from heaven[61]…And he said unto us: There shall come forth another doctrine, and a confusion, and because they shall strive after their own advancement, they shall bring forth an unprofitable doctrine. And therein shall be a deadly corruption (of uncleanness), and they shall teach it, and shall turn away them that believe on me from my commandments and cut them off from eternal life. But woe unto them that falsify this my word and commandment, and draw away them that hearken to them from the life of the doctrine and separate themselves from the commandment of life: for together with them they shall come into everlasting judgment.[62]
The preceding passages leave the simple question if modern pastors live off the profits of their congregations, and often become wealthy by selling god through best selling books, countless dvd’s and large, irreverent cheering audiences (Trinity Broadcasting Network is especially notorious for this) are they not seeking their own advancement? Have they not rejected the kingdom of order and ordained governance for one of confusion of doctrine rite and practice. Is it not a purely temporal kingdom based on the wisdom of men, and as Thomas Jefferson noted, used as a tool of advancement and money?
If Gods kingdom is a Kingdom of universal order, does not all his creation abide by set order?


[1] http://www.mrm.org/topics/reviews/born-again-mormon-moving-toward-christian-authenticity
[2] Ibid
[3] Title banner for McCraneys Website as listed on Google May 9, 2008. The website title misspells authentic as authenic
[4] Heart of the Matter Broadcast May 13, 2008, 8-9 pm Mountain time
[5] Ibid
[6] ibid
[7] This comment was intended to condemn the LDS churchs stance on official interpretation of Scripture and organization.
[8] Bishop Lightfoot quoted in Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 1: Apostolic Christianty AD 1-100, P.348
[9] Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 1:8 also see 1st Corinthians 1:10
[10] Heart of the Matter Broadcast May 13, 2008, 8-9 pm Mountain time
[11] Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities, Oxford University Press, P.2
[12] Professor of theology, University of Leipzig and discoverer and traslastor of the Codex Sinaicus
[13] Constantin Von Tischendorf, When Were Our Gospels Written, the American tract society, p 39
[14] Schaff, History, Vol 2 P. 791
[15] Ehrman, Lost Christianities, p. 155
[16] Origen: On First Principles 2:6
[17] Ibid 1:3
[18] The epistle of the Apostles, M.R. James editor, The New Testament Apocrypha, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1924. P. 490-91
[19]Ibid 489 Other places Christ makes similar comments “even the kingdom of him that sent me”, “for my Father hath found pleasure in you”, it is not given unto them to behold the glory of my Father”, “for my Father hath given me power”. In addition to always referring to the Father as a third party, distinct from himself, the Christ even quotes the charge given him by the Father: “For my Father said unto me: My Son, in the day of judgment thou shalt have no respect for the rich, neither pity for the poor, but according to the sins of every man shalt thou deliver him unto everlasting torment. ” verse 25
[20] Ibid 493
[21] The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaens 1:9
[22] Closing comments, The Infallible Word television broadcast, May 26, 2008
[23] Ibid
[24] I Corinthians 3:19
[25] Isaiah 55:8-9.
[26] Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 1: Apostolic Christianity AD 1-100, p. 347
[27] Acts 20:28.
[28] Schaff, History, also see Acts 6:6; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6.
[29] I Clement, Ch 42, ANF01 The Apostolic Fathers, Schaff, Philip (1819-1893), Clement was writing to correct a situation in which members of a congregation had deposed and replaced a bishop by their own accord.
[30] For example, McCraney has taken to performing baptisms in backyard swimming pools.
[31] Ignatius to the Philadelphians 1:6, 8, 11-12
[32] Ibid 2:17
[33] Dean Stanley quoted in Schaff, History Vol 1 P. 349
[34] Tischendorf, When Were Our Gospels Written, p. 24
[35] Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 1:12, Archbishop Wake Translation.
[36] Ibid 2:4
[37] Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 3:2
[38] Ibid 3:5
[39] Ibid 3:5
[40] Letter of Ignatius to Polycarp2:10, Polycarp also was an associate of John the Apostle: “…Polycarp, in his turn, had been a disciple of the evangelist St. John, and had conversed with other eyewitnesses of the gospel narrative”. According to Irenaeus, who was a student of Polycarp: “When I was yet a child, I saw thee at Smyrna in Asia Minor, at Polycarp’s house, where thou wert distinguished at court, and obtained the regard of the bishop. I can more distinctly recollect things which happened then than others more recent; …so that I can recall the very place where Polycarp used to sit and teach, his manner of speech, his mode of life, his appearance, the style of his address to the people, his frequent references to St. John and to others who had seen our Lord; how he used to repeat from memory their discourses, which he had heard from them concerning our Lord, his miracles and mode of teaching, and how, being instructed himself by those who were eye-witnesses of the word, there was in all that he said a strict agreement with the Scriptures.” Tischendorf, When Were Our Gospels Written, P.21
[41] James, new testament apocrypha, P.490, By the standards set in this text any church that does away with the sacrament is false.
[42] Ibid P. 491.
[43] Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 2:5
[44] Ibid 2:7
[45] Ibid 2:8
[46] I Clement, Ch 42, ANF01 The Apostolic Fathers, Schaff, Philip (1819-1893), Clement was writing to correct a situation in which members of a congregation had deposed and replaced a bishop by their own accord.
[47] Irenaeus, Against Heresies book III Chapter 3, ANF01
[48] Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction, 3rd edition. The ANF 1 gives a possible date of 97 A.D.
[49] Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, 1:6
[50] Ibid 1:8
[51] Ibid 1:9
[52] If the Bible is the only word needed, why did the early Christians accept not only the direct revelations in Hermas, but the book itself?
[53] ANF Vol 2, Pastor of Hermas, Vision II, ch 4
[54] Ibid, For an LDS modern similitude, when Wilford woodruff was in exile he received a revelation on Jan 26 1880. On Feb. 5th 1880 he related the vision to President Taylor and the twelve and sent them a copy. on April 4 1880 the revelation was received by the twelve as divine. As brother Woodruff was not the prophet, any revelation he received had to be approved by the church, the same held true for Hermas.
[55] Epistula Apostolorum, M.R. James The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1924), pp. 485-503, V 17
[56] Ibid v 19
[57] Ibid v 30, “It is noteworthy that this prophecy ends with a passage which is identical with one quoted by Clement of Alexandria from a source he does not name he does not name - only calling it 'the Scripture'--- Clem. Alex. Protrept. ciii., “But the saints of the Lord shall inherit the glory of God, and his power.Tell me what glory, O blessed one.That which eye hath not seen nor ear heard, neither hath it come upon the heart of man; and they shall rejoice at the kingdom of their Lord for ever. Amen.”
[58] Ibid 41
[59] Ibid 42
[60] Ibid 29
[61] Ibid 37-38
[62] Ibid 50