In the ancient church one sees reactions to the heresies of the day, whether Gnosticism, Manichaeanism, or the Christological heresies. Different time, different issues.
Similar methods of dealing with them. The closer they were to Jesus' time, the more peaceable they were. After that, you could tell criminals were at the helm.
I've been studying church history pretty heavily for the last 8 months. It's interesting and challenging to see what the early church encountered in the formulation of doctrines and beliefs.
In a way it's good that there were 2 main churches. It allowed for some variance without killing each other.
It's refreshing to see where councils condemned heresy and dis-fellowshipped various people without actually killing them. That came later, but it was a common theme. Usually it was guided by the church directly or indirectly imparted "guidance" that heresy should not be tolerated.
When the church finally became "legitimatized" by Rome and pagan churches became illegal,
a lot of unbelievers "joined the church" for political expediency. Can you imagine what that did to the flow of services?
Tales of Roman soldiers riding through rivers to be baptized en masse exist. After Rome fell, the church was the only thing in place that resembled the empire.
Frankish leaders like Clovis, Pepin, and Charlemagne began to conquer in the name of the church. People would be killed if they practiced any form of paganism. Like all peoples of all times, man had a desire to worship and the ones who didn't understand Christianity turned to their gods for protection. Many of these people were killed! I believe it's a spirit that was at work. You don't kill people for not converting.
Anway, the Lombards were threatening Italy and the Pope turned to the Franks.
In what has turned out to be typical of Popish behavior for centuries after, the Pope intervened in temporal matters, manipulating kings for "spiritual ends". He "approved" of Pepin (of the Franks) to take over the throne from the legitimate ruler and blessed the takeover. Pepin then came down and drove out the Lombards.
After the creation of the Holy Roman Empire (another power play), a tug of war ensued between Pope and Emperor for control. When things didn't go like the Popes wanted, they put an "interdict" on you that basically stopped all services to that city or even the whole country! They expected the people to rise up and put them out of power (if they didn't conform).
They would "excommunicate" individuals or rulers and then invite other rulers to invade them. Do you see any of the apostles doing anything like this? But the Pentecost experience seemed to elude much of the church.
A pattern had formed though for dealing with those who do not submit to the authority of "the church". It could cost you your life.
Anyway a study of the Popes was absolutely stunning. It was so bad that I basically just confined myself to Catholic sources; various bishops, church historians, Catholic Encyclopedia, etc. Although they certainly understate, downplay, and whitewash some of it, the truth is there.
The papacy, just like bishoprics were bought and sold at various times. At one time it was controlled by a political faction (led by a woman) that appointed popes and replaced them (sometimes by murdering them). Shortly after that was the "reign of the harlots"; then the schism.
Without a break it goes right into the crusades, of which horrible attrocities occurred. Then the murder of the Cathars, Albigenses, Waldensians, the inquisition, etc.
Then the battle for the Word of God! The hunt for those who would provide the scriptures (the truth!) to the common people. The reformation and the murder of those who want the freedom to worship as they choose. It seems so obvious now, but people gave their lives for the privilege.
And the popes were responsible for a lot of it. They in no way resemble the popes of this century.
There's no need to just look at it from a protestant perspective, but look at it as what Paul prophesied.
The reformation (if you could only see how degrading church leadership had become) was the beginning... The Medici pope at the time wasn't even a cleric when he became pope. They moved him through the ranks in several days.
Powerful Roman families would wrangle for the papal seat. When you read it, you see how carnal the whole thing had become.
After months of reading and hearing about these "false apostles",
I'd find out about another group and how a pope would take their leader and burn them at the stake. If 60 Minutes could get ahold of these guys now. Instead of trying to link with them back to the early church, they'd be distancing themselves from the wickdness in His name.
One thing really stuck with me, if it were wrong for Israel to have a king, what makes the church think it needs a monarch? That's what they were... temporal rulers who wore crowns.
Jesus is the Head of the church, and a vicar (means "in place of") is the same definition for Anti-(Christ). When Jesus has free reign over His Body, the gates of Hell will not prevail.
It's like a "spell" that has been put on Catholics, who willingly comply according to conscience. When you read how certain dogmas came about (i.e., infallability), and who was behind them, you see the carnal church at work. Did you know that the infallabiity thing was the last act of that council? The country was being invaded and they were attempting to assert their power (in the last hour). Many were not in favor of the choice they took. A couple of cardinals left in protest that even a suggestion like that would be made.
I'm sure this is hard to hear for a Catholic and even harder to believe, but look into it.
See how many groups were murdered, tortured, etc. There's no excuse at all. See how they manipulated kings and emperors; even changing sides when one would get too powerful. Incredible.
BTW, I love Catholics have great compassion for them, but the history of the church speaks for itself in that department. Thank God for the reformation, which is still going on. Great hope for Catholics too.