Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in
Question 7
When the Church accepted paid clergy and began saying “God had changed the rules,” it also began applying Haggai’s “latter temple” glory to the Church; how should Christians discern whether a “new era” is genuine renewal from God or rationalized compromise, and what safeguards did early Christianity use before those walls were breached?
Another way to ask: The Church accepted paid clergy and said “God changed the rules,” using Haggai to support it. How can Christians tell the difference between real renewal from God and a compromise we are trying to justify, and what safeguards did early Christians use before those “walls” fell?

Direct Answer The transcript suggests discernment should lean on the earlier “walls” that once protected apostolic Christianity: resisting claims of new revelation, maintaining separation from the world, referring hard questions to apostolic churches/elders, and preserving congregational independence. When those safeguards weakened, the church started calling major changes a “new era,” which Bercot frames as rationalized compromise.

Support from Transcript:

  • The four walls included: no new revelation/ultra-conservatism, separation from the world, referring questions to elders and apostolic churches, and congregational independence.
  • After Constantine, leaders said “the old ways…no longer had to be followed,” and “God had changed the rules.”
  • The church accepted “the possibility of new special revelation.”
  • Christians applied Haggai: “The glory of this latter temple shall be greater than the former,” using it to justify soaring to “new heights.”
  • Eusebius celebrated imperial access like “a picture of Christ’s kingdom…a dream rather than a reality,” showing how flattery shaped perception.
Discussion Follow-ups Which “wall” is most needed when a proposed change is defended mainly by optimism, excitement, and claims of a new move of God?