The Return To Wholeness

Modern Christianity vs. Historical Biblical Christianity

Modern Christianity—encompassing Roman Catholicism, Protestant denominations, and contemporary evangelical movements—differs markedly from the Christianity practiced in New Testament times.

Over two millennia, doctrines have been refined and altered, church practices have absorbed cultural and political influences, and new traditions have arisen. To understand these changes, we must compare the beliefs and practices of the early biblical church with those of mainstream Christianity today. This includes examining doctrinal shifts (such as the development of the Trinity dogma), changes in worship (from Saturday Sabbath to Sunday observance), adoption of holidays like Christmas and Easter, and the incorporation of pagan elements especially after Emperor Constantine’s reforms. We will also explore how many modern teachings rest on man-made traditions rather than direct scriptural mandates, and consider the spiritual consequences of a fear-based, tradition-driven religion versus the genuine conversion and spiritual life emphasized by the early church.

Foundations of Historical Biblical Christianity (1st Century)

Beliefs and Practices of the Apostolic Church: The earliest Christians, led by the apostles, based their faith directly on Jesus’ teachings and the Hebrew Scriptures. They met in homes (or occasionally in Jewish synagogues or the Jerusalem Temple), shared communal meals (the “Lord’s Supper”), and devoted themselves to prayer and the apostles’ doctrine (Acts 2:42).

Their worship was simple and scripture-centered, without the elaborate rituals or hierarchy that would develop later. Leadership existed (apostles, elders, deacons), but it was collegial – in the New Testament, local congregations were often led by a group of elders rather than a single powerful bishop. All believers were encouraged to exercise spiritual gifts and were considered a “royal priesthood” under Christ (1 Peter 2:9).

Jewish Roots and Biblical Feasts: Early Christianity emerged from Judaism, so the first Christians (most of whom were Jewish) initially continued observing Sabbath (the seventh-day Saturday) and biblical festivals (like Passover) in addition to celebrating Jesus’ resurrection.

The New Testament hints that Jewish believers did not immediately abandon their heritage – for example, the apostles frequented the Temple and observed hours of prayer (Acts 3:1), and Paul hastened to Jerusalem for Pentecost (Acts 20:16). Jesus himself kept biblical feasts (Luke 22:15) and never instructed a new set of holidays. Thus, historical biblical Christianity had no concept of annual celebrations like Christmas or Easter, nor any mandate to change the day of weekly worship. In fact, for the first few centuries, Jesus’s birth wasn’t celebrated at all – the key holy days for early Christians were Epiphany (commemorating Christ’s manifestation) on January 6 and Pascha (Passover/Easter) commemorating the resurrection. There is no record in the New Testament of the apostles observing Christ’s birthday or instructing others to do so. Their focus was on moral teaching, imminent hope in Christ’s return, and an experiential faith empowered by the Holy Spirit.

Spiritual Experience vs. Ritual: Importantly, the early Christians emphasized an inner spiritual conversion – “new birth” (John 3:3) – which transformed one’s soul and behavior. The apostolic message centered on repentance, faith, and receiving the Holy Spirit, resulting in love, joy, and holy living (Galatians 5:22-23).

This transformational aspect was the heart of the faith. Outward rituals (baptism, breaking of bread, etc.) were observed, but they were simple and symbolic, not mechanisms of control. There was little of the fear-based religiosity that later ages would see; rather, “God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love” (2 Tim 1:7). The earliest believers were often persecuted minorities, meaning adherence was a matter of deep conviction rather than social obligation. This stands in contrast to later eras when Christianity became socially and politically enforced.

Post-Apostolic Changes and Early Church Tradition

Even in the generation after the apostles (the Apostolic Fathers, 2nd century), we see the first hints of change. For instance, church writings from this period show an emerging hierarchy and a distancing from Jewish customs:
• Rise of Bishops: By the early 2nd century, influential leaders like Ignatius of Antioch advocated a strong role for the bishop in each city. Ignatius urged Christians to “do nothing without the bishop” and to respect the bishop as God’s representative, reflecting a move toward monarchical episcopacy (one bishop governing the church in a region). This was a shift from the New Testament’s plural eldership and foreshadowed the later development of a formal clergy/laity divide. Within a century or two, this evolution produced a clear church hierarchy (bishops > presbyters > deacons) which had no direct blueprint in Scripture but arose to maintain order and doctrinal unity amid growing communities and controversies.

• Sabbath to Sunday: In the New Testament, there are indications that Christians gathered on Sunday (the first day of the week) to commemorate Jesus’ resurrection (e.g. Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 16:2). However, this was originally in addition to the Sabbath rest, not a replacement mandated by scripture. By the early 2nd century, though, some Gentile Christians began emphasizing Sunday as their primary day of worship. Ignatius of Antioch wrote that believers “no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day” (Sunday). This reflects a growing “anti-Judaizing” sentiment in parts of the church – a desire to distinguish Christian practice from Jewish practice. Still, it’s important to note that scripture itself never changed the Fourth Commandment (keeping the seventh-day Sabbath). The shift to Sunday as the sole holy day was a post-biblical development, which over time became universal.

• Early Doctrinal Development: The seeds of later doctrines were being planted. For example, the concept of Jesus as divine was always central (John 1:1, John 20:28). But the formal doctrine of the Trinity – the idea of one God in three co-equal Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) – was not explicitly articulated in the first-century biblical texts. The New Testament contains “Trinitarian” formulas (e.g. baptizing in the name of Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and calls Jesus divine, yet early Christians struggled to fully explain this mystery. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, Church Fathers like Theophilus of Antioch and Tertullian began using the term “Trinity” and formulating how the Son and Spirit relate to the Father. Notably, Tertullian (c. 200 AD) was the first to explicitly define the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and argue for it against other views, though he admitted “the majority of believers” in his time found issues with this doctrine. In other words, many ordinary Christians of the 2nd–3rd century still held simpler or different understandings of God (some were “binitarian” – honoring Father and Son, but not thinking of the Spirit as a co-equal person). This doctrinal evolution shows how theological ideas were refined over time beyond the explicit statements of Scripture.

• Asceticism and Other Traditions: Early on, some practices arose without biblical basis, often in reaction to surrounding culture. For example, the veneration of martyrs and saints began in seed form by the late 2nd and 3rd centuries – Christians held memorials at martyrs’ tombs and attributed miracles to their prayers. The Apostolic Fathers don’t mention praying to saints or Mary, but by the 3rd century, devotion to Mary as the “New Eve” was growing among theologians. Such ideas, while heartfelt, were not part of original apostolic instruction. They were influenced by both piety and the tendency to mirror familiar pagan practices (honoring many divine figures), as discussed later.

In summary, within 100-200 years after Christ, the church was developing organizational structure and doctrinal terminology that went beyond the New Testament pattern. These changes set the stage for even larger shifts once Christianity aligned with imperial power.

The Constantinian Shift and Pagan Influences on Christianity

A monumental turning point came in the 4th century with Emperor Constantine the Great. His reign (AD 306–337) effectively ended the persecution of Christians and made Christianity the favored (eventually official) religion of the Roman Empire. This “Constantinian shift” profoundly affected Christian practice and accelerated the adoption of pagan-influenced customs into the church.

Constantine’s Policies: Constantine’s own faith is historically debated – whether it was genuine or partly political – but his impact is clear. In 312 AD he attributed a military victory to the Christian God and soon issued the Edict of Milan (313) granting tolerance to Christianity. Over the next years, he gave the Church state patronage, convened councils to settle doctrine, and intertwined the empire’s fortunes with the Church’s. Historians note that Constantine, as a pragmatic ruler, was conservative in matters of religion: his support of Christianity “produced fewer innovations than one might have expected,” serving more to preserve the Empire’s unity than to radically change religious life. In practice, this meant blending Christian ideas with existing Roman traditions to ensure a smooth transition. Constantine did not outlaw paganism – he even retained the title Pontifex Maximus (high priest of the pagan state cult) and allowed pagan worship to continue alongside Christian worship. This climate led to a syncretism: the imperial church absorbed certain pagan elements so that converts could more easily adapt.

Sunday – “The Venerable Day of the Sun”: One striking example is the formalization of Sunday as the day of rest. On March 7, 321 AD, Constantine decreed that “Sunday, which was sacred to Christians as the day of Christ’s resurrection and to the Roman Sun God (Sol Invictus), be declared an official day of rest”. Markets were closed and public business halted on Sunday by law. The very wording linked Christian worship with dies solis (day of the sun) – effectively merging the biblical concept of the Lord’s Day with the pagan sun-god cult. Indeed, Constantine’s coinage and propaganda continued to invoke Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun) for years after his “conversion.” For example, a gold coin issued in 313 shows Constantine’s bust alongside the sun-god’s image, with an inscription calling Constantine “companion of Sol Invictus”. Even as a Christian ruler, he presented himself as allied with the Sun deity – a clear sign that pagan reverence was being grafted into official Christianity. Later, the Church would further endorse Sunday and de-emphasize the Sabbath: the regional Council of Laodicea (AD 363–364) went so far as to prohibit Christians from resting on the Jewish Sabbath. Canon 29 of that council declared that Christians “must not Judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day” and instead honor Sunday; any who continued observing Sabbath were to be anathematized. By this decree, the shift from Saturday to Sunday worship – which had begun earlier – was cemented in church law, despite no scriptural command to make this change. Church leaders explicitly chose tradition and expediency over the biblical Sabbath, to distance Christianity from Judaism and accommodate converts accustomed to Sun-day observance.

Integration of Pagan Festivals – Christmas and Easter: Under the influence of Constantine and later emperors, the Church also aligned its holy days with popular pagan festivals. The most famous example is Christmas. There is no record of the early apostolic church celebrating Jesus’s birth on December 25 (or any date); in fact, as noted, for three centuries Christians did not celebrate Christmas at all. Only in the late 3rd or early 4th century did church authorities settle on December 25 as the date, and this choice was very likely influenced by existing pagan holidays. The Roman mid-winter festival Saturnalia and the cult of Sol Invictus both had major celebrations around December 25 (the winter solstice period). Rather than suppress these immensely popular festivals, the Church repurposed them. “When church officials settled on December 25 at the end of the third century, they likely wanted the date to coincide with existing pagan festivals honoring Saturn (the Roman god of agriculture) and Mithra (the Persian god of light). That way, it became easier to convince Rome’s pagan subjects to accept Christianity” as the empire’s new official religion. In other words, Christmas was strategically timed to absorb the festivities of Saturnalia and the birthday of the Sun, giving them new Christian meaning. Many traditional Christmas customs – feasting, gift-giving, decorating with evergreens, lights, etc. – mirror pagan winter rites that long predated Jesus. Early Puritan Christians (and some others) even banned Christmas for a time because they recognized “its traditions… as linked to paganism”. Nevertheless, the December 25 custom prevailed across most of Christendom, illustrating how man-made tradition supplanted scriptural silence (since the Bible gives no date or command to celebrate Christ’s birth).

Likewise, Easter (as distinct from the original biblical Passover) shows syncretism. In the earliest church, the resurrection of Jesus was commemorated during Passover time (since Jesus died at Passover). There was even an early controversy (2nd century) over whether to celebrate on 14 Nisan (the Jewish Passover date) or always on a Sunday – a debate resolved at the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) in favor of a Sunday observance separate from the Jewish calendar. This decision led to a fully Christian Easter celebration, no longer tied to Passover. The very name “Easter” (used in English and Germanic languages) betrays non-Christian origins: it derives from Ēostre, a Germanic goddess of spring, as recorded by the 8th-century monk Bede. Bede explained that “pagan Anglo-Saxons had held feasts in her honor during the month Ēosturmonath (April), and that this became the English name for the Paschal season: Easter”. Moreover, the popular symbols of Easter – rabbits, eggs, lilies – are spring fertility symbols with pagan roots. The hare was associated with Ēostre and fertility, and many ancient cultures had spring rituals celebrating renewal of life (for example, Greeks and Romans celebrated Aphrodite/Venus, and other cults marked the resurrection of vegetation gods). The church, rather than banning these customs, often adapted them. An article on religious history notes: “The symbolic story of the death of a god and springtime rebirth is a tale as old as time. The spring equinox was recognized by various pagan cults as a festival of resurrection of light over darkness and the land’s fecundity. One such festival was Eostre’s, with the hare as her symbol of fertility”. By placing the celebration of Christ’s resurrection in this season and (in the West) retaining the old name, the Church essentially rebranded a pagan festival with Christian significance. While the core event – Jesus’s resurrection – is biblical, the way Easter is celebrated and even named owes much to cultural assimilation rather than explicit biblical instruction.

Other Pagan Influences and Practices: Under imperial Christianity, many other practices entered that have no basis in original scripture but mirrored pagan culture:
• Veneration of Saints and Mary: As masses of former pagans entered the church, they were used to polytheistic devotion – many gods and goddesses, local deities, divine patrons for different needs. The Church’s answer was to present saints and Mary as intercessors and heavenly patrons, in effect replacing the pantheon with a Christian roster of holy figures. The cult of the saints (praying to saints, venerating their relics) really took off in the 4th and 5th centuries. For example, Mary, the mother of Jesus, began to be exalted with titles and honors far beyond what the New Testament provides. In AD 431 the Council of Ephesus officially declared Mary Theotokos (“Mother of God”) to affirm Jesus’ divinity. While this title was meant to safeguard correct doctrine about Christ, it also encouraged excessive Marian devotion among the faithful. Soon, images of Mary resembled earlier mother-goddess iconography – historians note that statues of the Egyptian goddess Isis with baby Horus were literally re-purposed and re-labeled as Mary with baby Jesus in some cases. Mary came to be seen by many as a merciful queen of heaven, paralleling goddesses like Isis, Astarte, or Diana. As one modern analysis puts it, “Rebranded pagan goddesses can be found in the Catholic Church today in the forms of the Virgin Mary. Mary is likely an amalgamation of pre-Christian mother goddesses; the cult of Isis had a particularly strong influence on Christian myth”. Similarly, numerous patron saints “took over” patronage of various aspects of life from earlier gods – for instance, sailors who once prayed to Neptune might now pray to St. Nicholas, or a pagan healing goddess might be replaced by a St. Brigid (whose very persona in Ireland closely mirrored the Celtic goddess Brigid). This process, often called Christianization of pagan gods, was recognized even by churchmen at the time. (Some local saints were later removed from the Catholic calendar when it was realized they were likely fictional or thinly veiled pagan holdovers.) The practice of praying to saints or Mary for help is absent from the Bible – prayer in Scripture is directed to God alone – yet it became a staple of historic Christianity due to this cultural blending.

• Artwork, Icons, and Symbolism: The early church, mindful of the Second Commandment against idols, was cautious about images. But by late antiquity, churches were filled with candles, incense, statues, and images reminiscent of pagan temples. The halo depicted around saints’ heads in art, for example, was borrowed from pagan sun imagery (the sun-disk behind the head of Sol or Apollo). The use of incense, holy water, vestments, and processions in Catholic liturgy likewise has parallels in ancient Roman religion (and in Old Testament temple worship, which the church partially imitated). These things aren’t inherently wrong, but they illustrate how church ritual developed from tradition and culture rather than direct New Testament teaching.

• Other Doctrinal Additions: In the centuries after Constantine, the institutional church introduced teachings that the original apostolic church would not recognize. For instance, doctrines like purgatory, the system of indulgences, and elaborate sacramental theology were established in the medieval period without biblical mandate – often as a means of moral instruction or, cynically, church control. The New Testament emphasizes salvation by grace through faith, but medieval Christianity often leveraged fear of hell and purgatory to ensure obedience and fill church coffers (e.g. selling indulgences to reduce time in purgatory). The Trinity doctrine, as noted earlier, was formalized through the Ecumenical Councils (Nicaea 325 and Constantinople 381). While most Christians today accept the Trinity as fundamental, it’s historically a product of Church councils and creeds, not a word-for-word biblical teaching. Likewise, Sunday sacredness is upheld by virtually all churches (Catholic and Protestant) by tradition – leading Catholic sources openly acknowledge “from beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer” of Sabbath to Sunday; rather, “the Church changed the day of rest” by its own authority. Such an admission highlights how human ecclesiastical authority and tradition came to shape Christian practice in ways the Bible never directly instructed.

In summary, through the Constantinian and post-Constantinian era, Christianity became culturally “Romanized.” To ease conversion and create a universal faith, church leaders intentionally or unintentionally grafted pagan festival dates, images, titles, and customs onto Christianity. This allowed ancient pagan habits to survive under new names. A modern commentator observes: “In the rites and symbols of the Roman Catholic Church, we find surviving, though rebranded, pre-Christian myths, deities, festivals, and rituals.”  What began as a persecuted, counter-cultural movement of disciples had, by the Middle Ages, become an empire-endorsed religion comfortable with imperial pomp and local folk traditions. While this made Christianity accessible to the masses, it also meant that many teachings and practices were driven by tradition and fear of departing from the Church, rather than by simple adherence to Scripture.

Tradition vs. Scripture: Doctrinal Changes Over Time

Let us catalogue some of the major differences between original biblical Christianity and modern mainstream Christianity (Catholic, and in many cases Protestant as well), focusing on doctrines and practices rooted in tradition rather than Scripture:
• Authority and Leadership: The New Testament portrays a church led by apostles and local elders, with Christ as the only head. There is no mention of a Pope or a centralized hierarchy controlling Christendom. Modern Catholicism, however, developed the papacy – a single bishop of Rome claiming supreme authority – as well as ranks of cardinals, archbishops, etc. This institutional model crystallized by the 5th–6th centuries and was unknown to the apostolic church. Even Protestant churches, while rejecting the Pope, often retain hierarchical structures and clerical titles that have scant New Testament basis. The original spirit of servant leadership (Matthew 23:11) often gave way to a top-down authority structure in later Christianity.

• Doctrines of God and Christ: Early Christians believed in one God and confessed Jesus as Lord and Son of God, but they did not formalize how God is one in three until later. The Trinity, now a standard doctrine (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant), was refined through philosophical terms post-Bible. Terms like homoousios (“same substance”) to describe Father and Son were introduced in 325 AD at Nicaea, and the divinity of the Holy Spirit was affirmed in 381 AD at Constantinople. Thus, what most Christians recite in the Nicene Creed is a product of 4th-century councils. Some groups throughout history (Arians, Unitarians, etc.) who rejected aspects of the Trinity have pointed out that the doctrine in its full form is not explicitly taught in Scripture – it was a theological development. Mainstream churches deem these developments Spirit-led progress in understanding; others see them as post-apostolic alterations. In any case, the concept of the Trinity as defined is based on church tradition interpreting Scripture, rather than Scripture alone.

• Salvation and Sacraments: The New Testament teaches that individuals are saved by faith in Christ, resulting in spiritual rebirth and evidenced by repentance and good works. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were practiced as outward signs. Over time, however, the Church layered this simple gospel with sacramental systems and legal requirements. For example, the Catholic Church eventually taught that seven sacraments are necessary channels of grace, administered by priests. It also promulgated doctrines like original sin (Augustine’s interpretation, 5th cent.) requiring infant baptism, and later the concept of purgatory (a place of purification after death) which became official in medieval doctrine. None of these specifics – infant baptism for salvation, purgatory, indulgences – are taught in the Bible; they arose from traditions and theological speculations as the church tried to systematize salvation. Even many Protestants, while rejecting purgatory and indulgences, still carry forward certain traditional views not explicitly found in Scripture (for instance, the immortal soul concept and a heaven-hell framework influenced by Greek philosophy more than Hebrew biblical thought).

• Worship Days and Festivals: As discussed, Sunday worship and annual feasts like Christmas/Easter are taken for granted now across nearly all of Christianity. Yet, none of these come from explicit biblical command. The 7th-day Sabbath (Saturday) is the only weekly holy day mentioned in the Ten Commandments, and the biblical festivals (Passover, Pentecost, etc.) were observed by Jesus and the early Jewish Christians. Modern Christianity generally ignores those biblical feasts (except Pentecost, which is remembered as a date but not with original observances) and instead keeps a calendar of holidays mostly established in the post-apostolic era. Christmas (Dec 25) and Easter (spring Sunday) as we have them are church traditions with syncretized origins (as shown above), not mandated in Scripture. Some Restorationist Christian groups today (such as Seventh-day Adventists for Sabbath, or certain Messianic believers for biblical feasts) have pointed this out and attempted to return to the original practice – often facing resistance precisely because tradition is so strong. It’s telling that when asked why most Christians keep Sunday, a common answer is essentially “because the Church changed it.” Indeed, a historical Catholic catechism candidly stated: “We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church…transferred the solemnity” by church authority, and not by Biblical directive. Protestants inherited this tradition in full, despite professing sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”); this irony is often noted by Catholic apologists who argue that Protestant Sunday-keeping unwittingly validates Catholic authority.

• Rituals and Devotional Practices: Original Christianity was characterized by informality and freedom in the Spirit – believers prayed extemporaneously, shared teachings, and even charismatic gifts (1 Corinthians 14:26). Over time, Christian worship became formalized liturgy. By the 4th–6th centuries, elaborate rituals (processions, chant, incense) and fixed prayers were standard, drawing from both Old Testament liturgical ideas and surrounding culture. The average medieval Christian participated in a highly ritualized Mass in Latin (which he likely didn’t understand), quite remote from the simple breaking of bread in homes described in Acts. Furthermore, Bible reading itself fell out of common practice – for centuries, laypeople depended on clergy for spiritual knowledge, as Scripture was in Latin and often restricted. This contrasts sharply with the Bereans in Acts 17:11 who “searched the Scriptures daily” to test teachings. The mainstream churches only restored scripture to the laity’s hands in the Reformation (16th century) and afterward. Thus a lot of medieval Christianity was “faith by hearing and ritual” rather than personal engagement with God’s word, again a divergence from early Christianity.

This listing could continue, but the pattern is clear: many teachings and practices of today’s Christian institutions are rooted in later traditions, church decrees, or cultural adaptations, rather than direct commands of Jesus or the apostles. As Jesus once said of the religious leaders of his day, “You nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down” (Mark 7:13). Unfortunately, the church over the centuries developed its own “traditions of men”, sometimes at odds with or overshadowing biblical truth.

Spiritual Consequences: Fear-Based Religion vs. True Conversion

One of the most profound differences between much of modern institutional Christianity and the original faith is in the experience of spirituality. When external traditions and authority structures take precedence, religion often becomes “fear-based” and driven by duty or social pressure. By contrast, the New Testament Christianity was about an internal transformation and joyful relationship with God, driven by love rather than fear.

Fear and Control in Later Christianity: As the Church became an institution wielding power – especially from the Middle Ages onward – it often used fear as a tool to maintain control over the populace. People were taught that salvation came through the Church’s sacraments and obedience to its precepts; failure to comply could mean eternal damnation. The vivid medieval preaching on hellfire and the terrors of the apocalypse put fear into the hearts of believers. Even after the Reformation, many fire-and-brimstone preachers (down to some modern evangelicals) have continued to emphasize hell, God’s wrath, and punishment as the primary motivators for repentance. While a reverent fear of God is biblical, excessive, slavish fear used to coerce behavior is not the Gospel. “If your theology requires you to keep people afraid to keep them in line, it’s not the gospel — it’s control,” as one commentator notes, “and Jesus came to set people free from that kind of control.”. Yet fear-based religion has been common. The Church historically taught that outside the Church there is no salvation, instilling fear of being cut off. The threat of excommunication in medieval times was grave – it meant not just social exile but the peril of one’s soul. Such fear bred a compliance that sometimes lacked genuine heart conversion. People would go through the motions – attend Mass, confess, do penance, give tithes – often more out of fear of hell or purgatory than out of love for God.

This tradition-driven, fear-driven approach can produce an outwardly religious life that is inwardly hollow. Jesus warned of this in Matthew 15:8: “These people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” When human traditions and commandments multiply (abstain from certain foods on Fridays, say these prayers, observe this feast, honor this saint, etc.), people may start obeying due to fear of punishment or desire for reward rather than out of a transformed heart. The spiritual consequence is often hypocrisy, legalism, or a shallow faith. History provides stark examples – e.g., during the Inquisition, authorities tried to enforce “true religion” by fear and torture, utterly contradicting the spirit of Christ. Even in modern times, some evangelical churches sadly resort to manipulative fear tactics (graphic hell descriptions, scare-of-the-week prophecies) to keep congregants in line. As an author recently observed, “the whole machinery of faith [can be] greased with threats — fear of hell, fear of God’s wrath, fear of missing the rapture, fear of getting it wrong and being cast out”. Such an atmosphere may fill pews, but it does not fill hearts with the true freedom and love that Jesus promised.

The Apostolic Ideal – Love and Transformation: In contrast, historical biblical Christianity as found in the New Testament is a religion of faith working through love (Galatians 5:6). The apostle John wrote “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear has to do with punishment” (1 John 4:18). The early Christians experienced persecution, yet rejoiced; they spoke of having “the peace of God which surpasses understanding” (Philippians 4:7). Their motivation was gratitude for Christ’s sacrifice and the living hope of resurrection, not a neurotic dread of divine retribution. When Peter preached at Pentecost, or Paul on his missions, they certainly warned of judgment for those who reject God – but the core of their message was “good news”: that through Christ, forgiveness and new life are available. Converts were cut to the heart and repented (Acts 2:37) not because the church threatened them, but because the Holy Spirit convicted them inwardly. The result was genuine conversion of soul and spirit – a repentance that leads to life, a conversion marked by joy, generosity (Acts 2:44-47), and courage even unto martyrdom.

True conversion as described in Scripture means becoming a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17). It is an inner change wrought by encountering the living Christ, through the Holy Spirit, resulting in a heart that loves God and loves others. This cannot be engineered by rules or fear; it comes by God’s grace and an individual’s sincere faith response. The early church saw dramatic transformations: formerly pagan idol-worshipers in Thessalonica “turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God” (1 Thess 1:9), and former sinners became saints, abandoning immoral practices (1 Cor 6:9-11). Such change was attributed to the power of the Spirit, not the power of human tradition. In fact, Jesus and the apostles often had to correct those who tried to impose old religious traditions on new Gentile converts (see Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council, where the decision was not to burden new believers with the entire yoke of Mosaic customs).

When religion is stripped of heavy tradition and fear-based control, what remains is the simple yet profound dynamic of a soul in communion with God. The “true source of life,” which is a direct spiritual connection with God, nourishes the soul in a way rituals never could. Jesus spoke of Himself as the vine and believers as branches – “apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). The sap in that vine is His Spirit. Institutional Christianity through the ages sometimes obscured this immediacy by interjecting layers of priesthood, saints, and rituals. But the original faith invites each person to boldly approach God (Hebrews 4:16) through Christ our high priest – to cry “Abba, Father” as an intimate child of God (Romans 8:15). This is a relationship of love, not fear. When one experiences this true conversion and abiding in God’s love, the fruit (holy living, good deeds) naturally follows (John 15:8, Gal 5:22-23), whereas mere rule-keeping without inner change is lifeless and cannot please God.

Conclusion: Back to Scripture and Spiritual Reality

Over two thousand years, Christianity’s external form has evolved greatly – from a handful of disciples meeting in homes to massive cathedrals and global organizations. Doctrines have been codified in creeds and catechisms; political and cultural forces have left their imprint on the faith. Many beautiful traditions have developed, but also many distortions. We have seen that much of modern Christianity’s teaching rests on church traditions (some benign, some quite foreign to Scripture) that accumulated especially after the 4th century when the faith became entangled with state power and pagan culture. From the shift of the holy day to the adoption of pagan festival dates, from the Trinity’s philosophical formulation to the elevation of church authority and extrabiblical dogmas – the divergence between historical biblical Christianity and traditional Christendom is significant.

What are the implications for believers today? It is crucial to recognize that tradition, when in conflict with Scripture, must yield to the pure Word of God. Jesus Himself modeled this by sweeping away Pharisaic traditions that voided God’s commands. The Protestant Reformation echoed this with the cry of sola scriptura, attempting to correct many medieval traditions. Yet even Protestants often stopped short, retaining some unscriptural practices out of habit or convenience. The challenge for all Christians now is to continually re-examine our beliefs and practices in light of the Bible. This does not mean all tradition is evil – but tradition must be subjected to biblical truth, not equated with it.

Moreover, beyond doctrinal correctness, the heart of the matter is spiritual authenticity. God is seeking those who will worship Him “in spirit and truth” (John 4:23). This means a return not necessarily to the culture of the first century, but to its spiritual core: a living, loving relationship with God through Jesus Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit, and guided by the Scriptures as the supreme authority. It means stripping away fear-based manipulation and rediscovering the awe and joy of knowing Christ personally. It means the conversion of the whole being – soul and spirit – such that our faith is not a mere label or routine, but an all-encompassing way of life grounded in truth.

In practical terms, a Christian today, moved by these insights, might seek to “get back to the Bible” in both doctrine and practice. This could involve honoring God’s commands over human customs, rejecting any religious teaching that contradicts Scripture, and focusing on the relational aspect of faith (prayer, study, obedience from the heart) rather than mere externals. It also involves a healthy skepticism of traditions that seem rooted in superstition or paganism; we can appreciate cultural heritage but not let it supplant God’s instructions.

Finally, the call is to return to the purity of scriptural truth and to a genuine spiritual connection with God, for He alone is the source of eternal life. When we peel back the layers of tradition, we find Jesus standing in simplicity, saying, “Come to me…and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28). The true rest is not in a particular day or ritual, but in Christ Himself. The true worship is not in a splendid basilica or emotionally charged service, but “in spirit and in truth.” The true Church is not defined by a human organization’s edicts, but by those individual souls who have been born again and indwelled by God’s Spirit.

In every age, God calls His people out of mere religion into real relationship. Today, that means shedding fear-based, tradition-bound religiosity and embracing the adventurous, transformative faith of the apostles. It means a Christianity where doctrines are tested by Scripture and hearts are tested by love. As we heed this call, we echo the Reformation anthem “Post tenebras lux” – after darkness, light. After the darkening accumulation of human traditions, the light of God’s Word shows the way forward. Let us therefore return to the foundation, “built upon the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20), and experience the vibrant, soul-changing Christianity that turned the world upside down in the first century. Only by reconnecting to that true source of life in God can the church in any era have the power and purity it was meant to manifest.

Reverend Carey Ann George

Lifelong Missionary & Biblical Expositor