What is repentance actually? A tough, historical, Biblical look at it, plus when we get the Holy Spirit. Have you?

In another series, I looked at baptism as the Bible described it, what God does in it, how early Christians viewed it, and where people started going astray from what God taught. 

Because someone mentioned it in a comment, I think that a look at repentance might also be important, as well as a look at the Holy Spirit. Timothy McHenry noted that some people will even admit the necessity of baptism, but shy away from repentance.  That's a shame, because we receive God's Help with the Holy Spirit when we are immersed, and overcoming any particular sin, no matter how addictive, is entirely possible. We truly can make new, good habits, and clean out the old ones. It takes a lot of work, though, and, well, yeah, work is work. 

With that said, let's look at repentance and the Holy Spirit. 







BQ: First, we're going to look at repentance as the Bible discusses it. Is it important? What is it? 

Jesus warned, "I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish (Luke 13:3)," so repentance is needed for salvation. How can we really define what it is?  2 Cor 7:9-11 gives a working explanation, saying:

"For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death. 

For observe this very thing, that you sorrowed in a godly manner: What diligence it produced in you, what clearing of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what vindication! In all things you proved yourselves to be clear in this matter." 

True repentance produces zeal and vehement desire to not continue sinning over and over. It is shown when old habits are killed off. Instead of continuing swearing, one stops. Instead of continuing bar-hopping, one stops. And in return, godly actions take the place of sin. 







BQ: True repentance is said to produce diligence, zeal, indignation, fear, vehement desire, a clearing of oneself, and vindication. What do we know of the word itself?  In Greek, it's "metanoeo," which literally means,"to perceive afterwards" , and was recognized to effectively mean, "change in the inner man."

The implications of this are great. Hebrews 6:6 says of some that when they, "then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame." Titus 3:5 says, "he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit."

Why is it impossible to renew some people to repentance? Because the inner man was changed by the Holy Spirit, and by their own doing, they drive the Spirit out, embracing the world. The practice of sin, doing it willfully and repeatedly, can make us lose out greatest Gift—it can make us lose the Holy Spirit. 







BQ: Today is just to cover a few verses that make it abundantly clear that repentance is not something to be taken lightly, but is in fact a core part of salvation. 

—Heb 12:17 "For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears." 

— 2 Pet 3:9 "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."

—  Acts 2:38 "Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

In order, we see that without repentance, we will be rejected. Second Peter also makes it clear that without repentance, we'll perish, but God gives us time to repent.  And Acts 2 shows that without being immersed (baptized) and repenting, we'll not receive the Holy Spirit.  

Have you truly repented? Have you been baptized? 





BQ: Now we're going to look a little more at the character of repentance. 

—Mt 3:8 "Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance."

—Mk 6:12 "They went out and preached that men should repent."

—Acts 3:19 "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord." 

From the above, we can see that true repentance leads to fruit in our actions. For example, if your bad habit was carousing at the bars, you'll not only stop, but you'll replace it with things which build the Kingdom. 

Furthermore, we see that if we wish to truly evangelize, we need to make repentance a part of it. Not to bash people over the head, but show they, as Acts 3 says, that refreshing can come, and sins can be wiped away. Repentance is about a fresh wind, and overcoming the stench of a dying world. 






BQ: It's incredibly interesting to look at how early Christians viewed repentance. To begin, Martyr wrote in the second century,

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly...then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated...there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe." 

That little passage alone reveals a ton. These people who were immersed were persuaded of the Truth (and faith, in Greek, means persuasion), and had decided to live according to the likeness of Christ. Immediately they were then baptized, and they repented of their sins. 

Early Christians understood that when a person had faith, it included baptism, and very importantly, repentance. When we're Christians, we can't let ourselves practice the same old sins. 






BQ: In 150-200 AD, Clement wrote, 

"We are washed from all our sins, and are no longer entangled in evil. This is the one grace of illumination, that our characters are not the same as before our washing... In the same way, therefore, we also, repenting of our sins, renouncing our iniquities, purified by baptism, speed back to the eternal light, children to the Father."

Time after time, you'll notice that repentance is required. Early Christians understood that, after they were immersed, they could not be the same as before.their washing. When we're baptized, we MUST change. I can't stress it enough. No matter what it is, from swearing to sleeping around, we have to fight and overcome it. And that's why we're given then Holy Spirit as a gift, to empower us to be overcomers for Christ. 






BQ: Speaking of repentance, some will claim that they have certain sins that they just can't resist. This isn't true, but it is a symptom of having very little faith in God. In Mt 17:20, Jesus said,

"Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.”

To say that we cannot overcome some sin with God's help is a terrible thing. He raised men from the dead, so something we find ourselves liking too much is no problem. That's why 1 Cor 10:13 says,

"No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it."






BQ: Although we've covered it a bit, some people claim that you don't receive the Holy Spirit when you repent and are immersed. Early Christians did not hold this view.  Cyril in 345 AD wrote, 

'Repent,' says he, 'and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. [Acts 2:38]' O unspeakable lovingkindness of God! They have no hope of being saved, and yet they are thought worthy of the Holy Ghost. You see the power of Baptism!"

The Holy Spirit in us is why Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." (Mt 11:11) The Holy Spirit gives us the power to change our inner man, and to make that repentance true. Baptism regenerates us, but the Holy Spirit constantly renews us. (Titus 3:5)

BQ: Early Christians understood that we indeed receive the Holy Spirit, but only in baptism. Around 200-250 AD, Cyprian wrote, 

"For by baptism the Holy Spirit is received... As also, in another place, the Lord speaks to the Samaritan woman, saying, 'Whosoever drinks of this water shall thirst again; but whosoever drinks of the water that I shall give him, shall not thirst for ever.' By which is also signified the very baptism of saving water, which indeed is once received, and is not again repeated."

For he who has been sanctified, his sins being put away in baptism, and has been spiritually re-formed into a new man, has become fitted for receiving the Holy Spirit; since the apostle says, 'As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.' 

Early Christians understood that people had to hear and believe in Christ in order to be spurred to have faith in immersion. They also understood that immersion and repentance were 100% necessary to salvation, and that if we continued in our old ways afterward, we made the indwelling of the Holy Spirit pointless.

Ask yourself if you have really repented? If not, there is an infinite amount of help available to you, as well as your brothers and sisters who have put on Christ in immersion. Take the bull by the horns and change!

Are you actually born again? A challenging look at ancient history of early Christians and the Bible.

I've been reading documents from antiquity close in time to when the apostles lived, mainly to see what the early church looked like, and how it changed. For example, some congregations have the "Lord's Supper" only once a month or so, yet the New Testament indicates that they "broke the bread" on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7, for example). Since God also says, "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you, (John 6:53)" it seems a perilous thing to do infrequently. 

My research led me to discover that early Christians took the Lord's Supper as part of a love feast every Sunday, which matches up with what Jude and 1 Corinthians discuss. There's a lot that can be learned from that: early Christians took the Lord's Supper as a part of an actual meal, and they were reverent, but also joyful.  Does that seem much like your congregation? If not, does what your congregation practices match the principle of what the early church did? Of what the New Testament prescribes?

These are all thoughts that I've had on my mind.  

As I've been examining these things, I've wanted to take a look at baptism. It seems that there is a large push against baptism. Often it's called an outward sign of an inward grace, or something along those lines. "A sign that you've been saved," it something else I've often heard. As I read through hundreds of pages of texts, I saw something interesting: the closer people were to the time of Jesus, the more important they saw baptism. Over time, men began changing it, or calling it unimportant. I'd like to examine baptism, but what the Bible says about it, and how early Christians felt about it. 








BQ: When looking at baptism, it's important to note that God said, "My salvation will not delay," in Isaiah 46:13, and in Acts 22:16, He questioned Paul, saying, "Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." 

Genesis 17:10-14 describes the use of physical circumcision and its purpose, saying in part, "This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among...shall be circumcised in the flesh...And the uncircumcised male child...shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."(Genesis 17:10-14)

So, under the New Covenant, how does a person enter into the covenant of Christ? God explains circumcision was nothing more than a shadow of the spiritual reality of baptism. "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."  (Col 2:11-12)  We enter into a covernant relationship with Christ in immersion.







BQ:Looking at immersion, it was considered vital to early Christians. Around 110-165 AD, Justin Martyr, an early Christian, wrote,

 "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly...are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated." 
...
"They then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all...there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe." 

Notice here that Martyr quotes John 3, where Jesus explained , and says that being born again occurs in baptism, and that baptism takes place in water. Lots of Christians don't believe that baptism is actually important, but here and early Christian did, and used God's Word as proof. Here, also, as soon as people believed, they were baptized, because it was so important. Ring any bells?








BQ: Yesterday we saw that Martyr, an early Christian, wrote about people wanting to be followers of Christ, " they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated." 

...

"They then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' "

God said that without immersion, one would not enter the Kingdom of heaven, and Martyr believed Him. But he also referred to this washing as a "regeneration." This matches up with Titus 3:5, which says,  "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)  








BQ:  We saw that Martyr noted, as God also did, that immersion was critical if we want to see heaven, and that it regenerates us. Titus 3:5 says, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit."

Look how this syncs with Acts 2:38, which says, "Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Here we have washing, in immersion, and renewing, by the Holy Spirit. Being born again truly occurs at immersion. But, like Martyr also noted, repentance is also necessary, or you're just getting wet. 








BQ: Looking more at what early Christians wrote about baptism, we see that Martyr, in a letter on Christianity, wrote, 

"There, the one who refuses to be baptized is to be condemned as an unbeliever, partially on the basis of what Jesus told Nicodemus....He that, out of contempt, will not be baptized, shall be condemned as an unbeliever, and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish.

 For the Lord says: 'Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.' And again: 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned.'" (Mark 16:16)

What is fascinating to me is that early Christians very solidly equated baptism with belief. To the, if you believed, you were immediately baptized. There was no delaying. 







BQ: Just looking more at early Christians and how they understood immersion, between 120-205 AD, Irenaeus wrote, "

"As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are thus spiritually regenerated as newborn infants, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" 

Often people these days think that baptism is silly, or weird. Why would God consider being dunked important?  In 2nd Kings 5, a man named Naaman had the same unbelief, when God told him to immerse himself in a dirty river to be made clean again. Yet he finally did, and "his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean." Baptism does this for our spirits, and makes us clean. It is like being born again. 







BQ: Irenaeus, and early Christian, wrote shortly after the apostles died, 

"This class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole faith."

That, to me, is incredibly fascinating, As early as 100-200 AD, Satan was already trying to convince people that baptism was pointless, and that when God says, "baptism now saves you," (1 Pet 3) it wasn't really true.  Why would saying baptism isn't important be a renouncing of faith, though?  It's because, as Colossians 2:12 points out, "having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

If we don't have faith in God raising us in baptism, we don't have faith in His work. 






BQ: Although I am only providing a small sliver of the early Christian writings about baptism, many of them contain the exact same, Bible-based logic. Some people wonder why water would be important. Tertullian, between 140-230 AD, wrote of this,

"After the world had been hereupon set in order through its elements, when inhabitants were given it, 'the waters' were the first to receive the precept 'to bring forth living creatures.' Water was the first to produce that which had life, that it might be no wonder in baptism if waters know how to give life." 

God has always used water: priests had to cleanse themselves with it first, he cleaned the world and saved Noah's family with it, He washed Naaman with it, and He used it to select soldiers. It would be stranger for us to believe that God suddenly saw no value in it. 




BQ:  A Catholic invention about baptism is that it can be by sprinkling, which doesn't fit the meaning of "baptizo," to immerse.  The history of "immersion" without immersion was first absolutely confirmed around 324AD, but Tertullian wrote of it much earlier, saying,

"Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins."   There was a reason he was called "John the Immerser," not "John the Sprinkler." :) 





BQ: Today we take another look at what the early Christian Tertullian wrote on baptism, and we'll see that a very common argument Satan uses against it was well known by early Christians, but also easily dismissed as deceit.

"But they roll back an objection from that apostle himself, in that he said, 'For Christ sent me not to baptize;' [1 Cor 1:17] as if by this argument baptism were done away! For if so, why did he baptize Gaius, and Crispus, and the house of Stephanas? 

However, even if Christ had not sent him to baptize, yet He had given other apostles the precept to baptize. But these words were written to the Corinthians in regard of the circumstances of that particular time; seeing that schisms and dissensions were agitated among them, while one attributes everything to Paul, another to Apollos.

 For which reason the 'peacemaking' apostle, for fear he should seem to claim all gifts for himself, says that he had been sent 'not to baptize, but to preach.' For preaching is the prior thing, baptizing the posterior. Therefore the preaching came first: but I think baptizing withal was lawful to him to whom preaching was." 

Yep, using 1 Cor as an argument against baptism isn't anything but inaccuracy and taking things out of context. 







BQ: If baptism were not important, Satan wouldn't want to attack it. But because it's critical, he often goes at it first. Read this incredibly analogy by Tertullian, noting Satan's supernaturally evil attempt to undermine baptism:

"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life!

The consequence is, that a viper of the Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism. Which is quite in accordance with nature; for vipers and asps and serpents themselves generally do affect arid and waterless places. 

But we, little fishes after the example of our ikhthus, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water; so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water!"

I believe that stands for itself. : )  





BQ: If water and baptism were important to God, they'd have shown up as important to Christ, too. Look what Tertullian pieces together from the Bible on how baptism and Christ are inextricably bound together, in life and in death:

"How mighty is the grace of water, in the sight of God and His Christ, for the confirmation of baptism! Never is Christ without water: if, that is, He is Himself baptized in water; inaugurates in water the first rudimentary displays of his power, when invited to the wedding; invites the thirsty, when He makes a discourse, to Himself being living water; approves, when teaching concerning love, among works of charity, the cup of water offered to a poor child; recruits His strength at a well; walks over the water; willingly crosses the sea; ministers water to his disciples." 

"Onward even to the passion does the witness of baptism last: while He is being surrendered to the cross, water intervenes; witness Pilate's hands: when He is wounded, forth from His side bursts water; witness the soldier's lance!... True and stable faith is baptized with water, unto salvation; pretended and weak faith is baptized with fire, unto judgment." 

In 1 John 5, God says, "the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree." When Christ died, the blood and water came out. We contact Christ's death, and thus his blood, in the waters of immersion. 







BQ: Just to give you a little more than Tertullian, look what Clement wrote between 150-200AD:

"We are washed from all our sins, and are no longer entangled in evil. This is the one grace of illumination, that our characters are not the same as before our washing... In the same way, therefore, we also, repenting of our sins, renouncing our iniquities, purified by baptism, speed back to the eternal light, children to the Father."

Clement equated baptism with becoming a child of God. Why would this be? Galatians 3:26-27 explains, saying, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.  For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 






BQ: Today, we look at another early Christian reasoning on the logic of immersion. In 181 AD, Theophilus of Antioch,

 "Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration all who proceed to the truth and are born again and receive a blessing from God" 

This is very similar to Tertullian's reasoning. Water=life. 







BQ: Earlier I mentioned Naaman, but we'll see that Irenaeus of Lyons, around 200AD, made a beautiful connection between the Old and New Covenants, and why baptism is important. He said,

"Lyons "`And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan' [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. 

For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: `Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven'." (John 3:5)






BQ: Also around 200AD, Cyprian wrote about being a son of God being tied in with immersion. He wrote,

"But what a thing it is, to assert and contend that they who are not born in the Church can be the sons of God! For the blessed apostle sets forth and proves that baptism is that wherein the old man dies and the new man is born, saying, 'He saved us by the washing of regeneration.' But if regeneration is in the washing, that is, in baptism, how can heresy, which is not the spouse of Christ, generate sons to God by Christ?" 

Although long, it behooves us to read Romans 6:3-11, since Cyprian mentions it, and it is the old way to have the old man die, and have a new man be born:
 

"Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be [b]in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus."

BQ: Since I mentioned sprinkling before, I thought that I should give a couple of references to support that baptism (immersion) was not done that way until man decided to make it "more convenient."

“It is without controversy that baptism in the primitive church was administered by immersion into water and not by sprinkling; seeing that John is said to have baptized in Jordan, and where there was much water, as Christ also did by his disciples in the neighborhood of these places.  Phillip also going down into the water baptized the eunuch.”  (Ecclesiastical History, Chapter I, Sec. 138.)

 

“Immersion and not sprinkling was unquestionably the original form.  This is shown by the very meaning of the words baptizo, baptisma, and baptismos, used to designate the rite.”  (History of the Apostolic Church, Schaff, p. 488.)

BQ: I had mentioned before that we can see early deviation from baptism, and the earliest uncontested deviation is not the Didache, as the age of that is hard to determine, and may be much later, given how it is often very inconsistent with what the Bible teaches. What we do see, however, is that a mention of Novatian by Eusebius, between 250-350AD, says, 

“He (Novatian) fell into a grievous distemper, and it being supposed that he would die immediately, he received baptism, being besprinkled with water on the bed whereon he lay, if that can be termed baptism.”

Notice here that they even expressed incredulity at calling sprinkling immersion, since it wasn't.  It also seems that Novatian was using baptism as his last-ditch effort to express a change of heart, if he was even conscious at the time.  Still, note that even that late, baptism was considered essential.


I hope this has been as interesting to you as it was to me. It's pretty scary to see that we so nebulously use terms like "born again," and ignore how God goes about making us born again! :)

Early Christianity—Was is like what we have today?

 BQ: Instead of looking at traditions of men "in church" since the Protestant Reformation, or since the beginning of Catholicism I prefer to look at what the Bible says. However, it is interesting to look at writings from outside of the Bible, yet close to the 1st century, to see what people who observed Christianity noted about it. Does what the Bible mentions, or what the early congregations did, really match up with what we're familiar with?

Let's look at a couple of things. "We keep the...day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead." (The Letter of Barnabas, around 100 AD)

Above we saw that meeting on the first day of the week was important to a man named Barnabas, and Acts 20:7 shows us that God talks of it, too: "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight."

We should not discount the importance of assembling!

BQ:   We're looking at what early Christian assemblies were described as looking like, and comparing and contrasting those descriptions with what the Bible says, and with what our own assemblies may look like. 

Barnabas also wrote, "Do not live separate lives, by each going his own way, as those who have already been justified; but by coming together in harmony, you must discuss what leads to the benefit of all. For Scripture says, “Woe to those who are wise to themselves, and have understanding in their own sight!” We should be spiritual; a complete temple to God."

This is very much like Acts 2:47-48, which says, "Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people." 

Often when we have repeated problems, it's because we don't spend enough time together with other Christians, but instead start becoming best friends with the world. God and early Christians considered daily fellowship with Christians to be vital. Do you?

BQ: Pliny the Younger was governor of Pontus/Bithynia from 111-113 AD. He wrote to Roman Emperor Trajan of Christians he was dealing (torturing and killing) with saying,

“they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath not to (do) any wicked deeds, never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate.”

The picture here is of a very familial assembly, with a simple meal also being taken. Other references show that meals were often a theme, and that the Lord's Supper was usually consumed after, or during, a "feast of love" on Sundays. 

BQ:  So how do writings on early Christian congregations match up with the New Testament? Today we'll look at something the "Didache [Teaching]" said. The Didache was probably written between 80-150AD.

"Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day: But every Lord's day you gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure." 

Other than references to eating and the Lord's Supper (here it may be speaking of a common meal, the Lord's Supper, or more likely, both), we also see that they were trying to deal with overcoming sin. Not in a melodramatic way, but rather as a system of accountability. This seems to be like James 5:16, which says, "Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much."

BQ: We've seen a but of what the Didache wrote about early Christian assemblies, and today we'll look at how it also said, "But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they are reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned."

Often we get into petty feuds with our brothers and sisters, but Jesus said, "Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." (Mt 5:22-24) 

Maintaining unity is of vital importance in the war against Satan. What, though, was the sacrifice spoken of? Romans 12:1 makes that clear, saying, "present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your rational service."  If our lives are to be acceptable, we must be reconciled with ours spiritual family.

BQ: Justin Martyr wrote his famous Apology from Rome circa 150 A.D.  He noted something that many Christians want to discount these days, saying, 

“After we have thus cleansed the person who believes and has joined our ranks, we lead him or her in to where those we call ‘brothers’ are assembled.” It is the person who has been “initiated” by baptism that is brought into the fellowship of “brothers.”

Baptism was practiced by Jews, and made integral to becoming a Christian by God. Why is baptism so important? God says a ton on this, but we'll look at just a few bullets:

— "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."  (Col 2:11-12)

—"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Galatians 3:27)

—"...while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 3:20-21)

God says that baptism saves us and clothes us in Christ, and early Christians considered baptism the point at which souls became part of a spiritual family.

BQ:  Some Christians believe that assembling with other Christians isn't that important, but we see God telling us it was important in the Bible, and also writings of early Christians who remark on it's value, too.  Justin Martyr wrote of it around 150 AD,

"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits;…Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought… and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited…helps the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need."

Here we see a picture that includes prayer, the Lord's Supper, and deacons.  But it also fits in with  James 1:27, which said, "Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." Helping those in need among us has always been an important part of being like Christ. 

BQ:  In his defense of Christianity, Tertullian (~155-222 AD) wrote a stunningly-long letter, but I've picked out some bits that may be of extra value to us when looking at what people close to the time of Christ thought was valuable.

"We are a body knit together as such by a common religious profession, by unity of discipline, and by the bond of a common hope. We meet together as an assembly and congregation, that, offering up prayer to God as with united force, we may wrestle with Him in our supplications...We pray, too, for the emperors, for their ministers and for all in authority, for the welfare of the world, for the prevalence of peace, for the delay of the final consummation.". 

Early Christians found being united to be absolutely critical to success for Christ, and Tertullian makes a comment similar to Eph 4:2-3, which says,"all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." It's hard sometimes, but being open to other opinions is important.  It's important to be united in a relationship instead of divided."  Notice also that Christians prayed for even those in government who sought to have them killed. Would you do the same?

BQ: Tertullian also wrote, "However it be in that respect, with the sacred words we nourish our faith, we animate our hope, we make our confidence more steadfast; and no less by inculcations of God’s precepts we confirm good habits....The tried men of our elders preside over us, obtaining that honour not by purchase, but by established character. There is no buying and selling of any sort in the things of God."<p> </p>

To inculcate is "to teach or instill be persistent instruction." Habits are formed by repetition, and early Christians realized that. Notice also that elders (also called "pastors") were considered important to early Christians, and God requires that they meet certain minimum qualifications, much like a job application has criteria for selection. In Titus 1:5-11, God elucidates, saying, 

"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you,  namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain,  but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled,  holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict." (Titus 1:5-11)

1 Timothy 3:1-7 has further remarks. If your assembly has pastors, do they meet these qualifications?

BQ: Do you ever go to a congregation and feel like you're being fleeced for money?  Tertullian, like many others, also saw the need for helping out those who were not well off. He remarked of Christianity, 

"Though we have our treasure-chest, it is not made up of purchase-money, as of a religion that has its price. On the monthly day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if it be his pleasure, and only if he be able: for there is no compulsion; all is voluntary. These gifts are, as it were, piety’s deposit fund. For they are not taken thence and spent on feasts, and drinking-bouts, and eating-houses, but to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined now to the house; such, too, as have suffered shipwreck; and if there happen to be any in the mines, or banished to the islands, or shut up in the prisons, for nothing but their fidelity to the cause of God’s Church, they become the nurslings of their confession."

At Christ's Church in Billings, MT, no collection plate is passed, and instead, there is a wayward box that you'd have to search for in the hall, and there people can donate if they desire. Why do you think that collection plates are passed, and how do you feel if an assembly seems to be all about making money? 

BQ:  Jude says in verse 12, "These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear." What in the world does that mean? Early Christians seem to have had the Lord's Supper with a meal at which they showed loved to each other, and Tertullian's writings indicate that it was very common.  He said,

"Our feast explains itself by its name. The Greeks call it agape, i.e., affection [love]. Whatever it costs, our outlay in the name of piety is gain, since with the good things of the feast we benefit the needy...As it is an act of religious service, it permits no vileness or immodesty. The participants, before reclining, taste first of prayer to God. As much is eaten as satisfies the cravings of hunger; as much is drunk as befits the chaste. They say it is enough, as those who remember that even during the night they have to submit to God."

There's a ton that we can glean from this paragraph, but we see that it was considered service, not "worship," and that it was filled with love. What's more, becoming drunk was considered a vile act. Often Christians go out to the bars, yet Christ and early Christians knew and know that even at night we have to submit (worship) God.  Don't let the world hoodwink you on that one!

BQ: Tertullian wrote of early Christians assembling that, "each is asked to stand forth and sing, as he can, a hymn to God, either one from the holy Scriptures or one of his own composing—a proof of the measure of our drinking. As the feast commenced with prayer, so with prayer it is closed. "

Notice just how perfectly this matches with Eph 5:19, which says, "And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord." 

God desired people to sing, to love, and to learn from song, but wanted everyone to avoid becoming drunk. 

BQ:  Ignatius of Antioch was sent to Rome to be executed around 110 AD, but he wrote before his death, 

"Therefore, make every effort to come together frequently for gratitude and praise of God. For whenever you are together frequently, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and his destructive plan is ruined by your unity of faith. 

Come together in common through grace...with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality – that is, the antidote so that we would not die but live for ever in Jesus Christ."

Here we notice a lot of important details. First, John 6:54 holds true. "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."  The Lord's Supper was considered critical to Christians.  Furthermore, frequently assembling was something that really gave Satan a black eye. 

What does that mean? Instead of hanging out with our fellow saints once per week, and those captive to Satan every other time we "go out," we should be doing out best to become a true family with those who are in Christ. Replace your friendship with the world with friendship with the saints, and become instead an ambassador and rescuer to those held captive by Satan.