Reflections on Church History: Introduction

Despite growing up in a Christian family and attending almost exclusively Christian schools (except for my 9^th and 10^th grade years) from kindergarten through undergrad, I never learned much about Church history. I knew some information about Luther, Calvin, the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Nicaea and the Nicene Creed. I knew that the early Christians were severely persecuted and many were martyred for their faith. I knew there was violent conflict between Catholics and Protestants, though I did not know the severity. I knew more about the history of missions and Christian missionaries as from a young age I found Christian mission autobiographies fascinating and inspiring. I loved learning about William Carey, “the father of modern missions”, Amy Carmichael, Eric Liddle, and Jim and Elisabeth Elliot, to name some missionaries I learned about – mostly on my own time. The history of Christianity never even interested me much. I remember being glad that I could complete all my Bible credits at my Christian college by studying abroad in Israel instead of having to take the mandatory (and dull, I thought) Church History class. While I always loved studying the Bible and learning about missions, the rest of Church history I did not mind not knowing much about. What mattered more, I considered, was the here and now of life and how my faith in Christ practically impacted how I lived.

Now that I have studied Christian history with some degree of depth, I realize this was an oversight. I think Christians understanding our history is very important, as it impacts our relationship with God now as well as practical Christian living. This is because the theology we are taught in Church is a product of history, and that theology impacts how we relate to and what we believe about God, other Christians, and the world.

What finally motivated me to better understand the history of Christianity was the change in my beliefs, namely: no longer believing Jesus was God, believing God was 2 in 1 and the Spirit was our Mother, believing in universal salvation, believing in reincarnation, and believing Christians will all be images of the invisible God like Christ. I believe each of these things solely because of the Bible, though better understanding Christian history and the beliefs of past Christians who share my conclusions have given me more confidence that my conclusions are true.  

As I started to talk to other Christians about my new beliefs, I began to realize that my historical dive was not sufficient regarding those topics. In some conversations with believers regarding the theology on this blog, Christian history, at times, appeared to be even more of an obstacle than any potentially contradicting Scriptures to accepting what I wrote on my blog. “History is not on your side,” one pastor told me. “You have a low view of the sovereignty of God,” another person said, arguing that my conclusions from the first 5 sections of my blog, given the majority Church has disagreed with them over history, is sure evidence that the Holy Spirit could not be the One speaking to me. Surely the Holy Spirit would have spoken to the majority of the Church over the centuries regarding my conclusions if they are true – and the Holy Spirit has (I have been told more than once), leaving the majority Church now with different - and correct - people have said to me, conclusions. History shows, I have been told over and over by Christians in my conversations, in both explicit and implicit ways, that Jesus must be God, the Holy Spirit must not be feminine, universal salvation must be false, and reincarnation must be false. Other Christians agree with me that Christians will be like Christ, though not to the degree that I propose in section 5 of my blog.

I have been perplexed at times. What about the Protestant (as most Christians I have talked to are Protestant) mantra of “sola Scriptura”? Almost every Christian I talked to, whether Protestant or Catholic, did not seem to embrace “sola Scriptura” in its entirety. I would insist that the Nicene Creed is just that – a creed, not Scripture – without much effect with many I talked to. To most Christians, the fact that “the Trinity” or “God is 3 in 1” or “God the Son” are absent from Scripture did not move them. How could we question something that has been “Christian” since the 4^th century and unites (almost) all Christian denominations: the great Nicene Creed? To be fair, all the Christians I have talked to also see the Trinity and Jesus’ divinity in Scripture too. From their perspective, the concept of “the Trinity”, “God is 3 in 1”, and “God the Son” are at least implicitly, if not explicitly, in Scripture.

I began to consider that perhaps I should do a much deeper dive into Christian history and try to understand why, if what I write about in sections 1-4 in my blog are true (section 5 I take out as Christians generally agree with me on section 5), are they not majority views in Christianity? Does the fact that they are minority – not just minority, but very minority – views prove they must be false? Surely if God has been directing His Church He would not allow the majority Church to get so many key doctrines wrong for centuries? I have wrestled with these questions since I first began studying each of these topics in 2022. As I studied Scripture, my bigger question, as I began to see biblical evidence for the unorthodox positions in Scripture, has been: if this is true, why history? Specifically, if the Trinity is not true along with Jesus’ divinity, why has God allowed it to be the dominant Christian view since 381 A.D.? If the Holy Spirit is feminine, why hasn’t this been addressed more and written about more throughout history? If universal salvation is God’s plan, why is the current predominant view that only a relatively small percentage of humanity will be saved? If reincarnation is real, why hasn’t God made that clearer? Given, again, that only very minority Christians accept what I have written in sections 1 through 4 of this blog, doesn’t this point to what I’ve written being false?

For me personally, I have always concluded, “no”, because I truly am “sola Scriptura” in the strictest sense. If I see it in Scripture, I believe it is true as I am convinced the Bible is God’s Word, regardless of history or if a minority or majority believe it. However, even from this perspective, I have struggled: why, God? How can these things truly be true if centuries of Christendom speak to the contrary – particularly on the divinity of Christ? And, people I have talked with and shared these beliefs with have generally disagreed with me, often pushing back given the witness of Christian history.

So, I finally decided to study the history of Christianity and try to understand better how what I am seeing in Scripture can be true despite centuries of belief by most Christians to the contrary. This section of my blog details what I have found and how the history relates to whether Jesus is God, if the Holy Spirit is Mother and, by extension, if marriage continues in the new heaven and new earth, if universal salvation is God’s plan, and if reincarnation is real. Overall, with the exception of the first three centuries of Christianity and the last two and a half centuries, I have been deeply saddened by what I have learned in studying Church history. The amount of blood shed in Christ’s name I find deeply disturbing – and by some Christians that are lauded by Christians today. Given the violent atrocities and corruption over the centuries, especially between the 4^th to 18^th centuries which tragically make up the vast majority of Christian history, I question even more deeply that the orthodox views on the topics I have raised are actually doctrines from the God the Father and the Holy Spirit as many of them were finalized as Church doctrine in the 4^th and 5^th centuries when many Church leaders did not exhibit the fruit of the Spirit. I am even more convinced that we should base our theology solely in Scripture and not in human tradition, which most Christians regardless of denomination do today on some level.  Further, I believe that Christians today should seriously reconsider the theology we have accepted from past Christian leaders who unrepentantly used violence in word and deed and deeply consider the theology of past Christian leaders whose loving character proved they knew God. I provide my theological justification for that in the next part of this post. Sadly, Christians over the centuries, myself included, have quickly accepted theology from past “Christians” whose lives in word and deed demonstrated that they knew little to nothing of Jesus and his way of love.

Perhaps at this point you are thinking: don’t be so harsh on the Church! Many people claimed to be Christians who were not throughout history, and they do not define Christianity. I agree. So, let’s not have those same people define our theology either.

This section is organized as follows: first, an examination of what Scripture says characterizes the work of the Holy Spirit versus the work of Satan, specifically via false prophets. Second, how Church history has shaped the doctrine of the Trinity and Jesus’ divinity. Third, how Church history has shaped our understanding of who the Holy Spirit is, our perspective on marriage, and the role of women in the Church. Fourth, how Church history has informed whether universal salvation is true or not, along with reincarnation, which, as I will explain, is a related belief, and how Church history has informed the Christian understanding of what it means to be like Christ. Lastly, a conclusion on if the witness of Christian history gives evidence for or against my biblical conclusions in sections 1-5 of my blog.

Matthew 16:18 says, “[Jesus said] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” I firmly believe this. Ultimately, we need to trust God and His Word even when we do not understand His ways. Isaiah 55:8 says, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. God has always been at work, and He is at work. Of course, He can only use broken people to bring His kingdom. Still, let us be very discerning in considering history, for while He can only use broken people to accomplish His purposes, persecution and hate are always from Satan, not from God, even if people claim God – and we should question theology about God that come from those who hatefully and seemingly unrepentantly persecuted those around them, showing no actual knowledge of God. As Jesus says in Matthew 5:8, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.” From Jesus’ perspective, the purity of a person is directly proportional to seeing God. If this is true, we should be very wary of listening to past Christians whose actions and words proved their hearts were not pure before God.

A last note: I am (obviously) not a historian. The focus of this blog is not history but theology. However, as history certainly shapes theology, I am including these reflections as I found it helpful in my study of theology, and I hope others will too. However, I am not going to provide a complete synopsis of Church history as many authors have already done that – and would do a much better job of that than I could attempt on this blog. Instead, I provide my reflections on Church history as the history pertains to the theology on this blog. My reflections are shaped by understanding what Scripture says about the work of the Holy Spirit versus Satan, which is the subject of the next post.