An observation from the apostolic predictions of apostasy leaves a suspicion in the claims of Greek Orthodoxy and Catholics who claim that the church tradition has been flawlessly followed through the centuries. It opens up the possibility that their old tradition, which historically follows the apostles’ teaching in time, is the product of that apostasy. The “church fathers” took over this line of authority as to suggest that they had the truth handed down to them from the apostles. They had huge shoes to fill but who said they had to be filled? This is a huge assumption that needs proven. Historically, there was a movement of a new “pastorship” of men, who eventually pooled their efforts together to present a uniform and united front. At least, this is how history seeks to portray it. They did appear to agree in the authority of the bishops, who sought to control what was believed and practiced. When a movement rises to such power over the conscience of men and women, and gain political sway over people, you can alter how history will be written. For example, we do not have many of the writings and documents from writers who were marked as “heretics” as they were not allowed to exist. We only have what they believed through third party descriptions. As we attempt to attach the historical fulfillment to the apostolic predictions of apostasy, there are only two conclusions. Either the church fathers were among those who led the apostasy or the authority that was given to the apostles was also passed on to them, even though the Scriptures do not support it.
The letters of the New Testament indicate that there was “another gospel” being preached by Jews who wanted to carry Mosaic traditions into the new covenant. Seeing that so many Jewish forms and symbols are taught by the Orthodox churches to show an unbroken continuum, the historical connection seems to fit the same Jewish influence that the apostle Paul strongly opposed. It is reasonable to expect their version of discipleship to include many traces of Judaism and forms of worship practiced in the Synagogues, a strong Jewish element. This Jewish influence continued from the synagogues until another player arose to influence people — Constantine. This man added his own imperial version and placed his version of Christianity on the map. Yet, the connection of Greek Orthodoxy and Roman Catholics with Judaism does not prove its authenticity. Instead, it provides evidence that they are following a branch from the first century Jews that were enemies of the cross of Christ.
The events of history that followed the first century are scarce and skeletal. A few writings exist in or around the end of the first century but more surfaces in the second and third centuries. While many have assumed that the teachings and practices referenced in them continue the tradition of the apostles, the content of their writings and their interpretation of Scripture offer no clear continuity of thought from the apostles’ teaching. Since the last quarter of the first century had little or no new revelation, depending on when you date the book of Revelation, thirty to forty years may have passed between the apostles and the earliest of these writings. Many writings were fanciful compositions called “gospels” (approx. 50 apocryphal gospels). These books appear to be additions to the four gospels that are accepted as inspired. If anything, these books would have caused more confusion for the common man. Do we place them all together by either accepting them all as being from God or denying them all as being forgeries and religious propaganda. Without passing any judgment on the purpose or motivation for the writing of these books, the facts alone point to a mass of material that is very unlike the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The differences are so noticeable to the casual reader and honest inquirer.
Rather than interpreting Catholicism as a natural carry-over from the traditions of the apostles, we see this period following the apostles as the fulfillment of an inspired prediction of religious innovation. This confusion from competing philosophies and claims of inspiration that follow a variety of competing doctrines are not so surprising given the prediction of the apostle Paul. Both, he and the evangelists under his supervision, appointed shepherds to oversee the spiritual needs of brethren. Part of their work was in preparation for this apostasy. For example, he warned the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 that after his departure, grievous wolves would arise from among themselves, speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30). Since he’s talking to the overseers of the saints in Ephesus, the pronoun may refer to the bishops. The “grievous wolves” were the bishops (overseers) who were “among them” and spoke perverse things (cf. “spake” – Heb. 13:7) to gain followers. The source of error is often among leaders, whose true nature is hidden. The historical evidence of confusion, along with the emphatic demands of the church fathers to do nothing without the presence of a bishop presents them as very viable suspects about whom Paul is predicting.
After the work of the Apostles, the world was characterized by this confusion of every philosophy imaginable- the product of men “speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them.” A common mistake is to place the “Church Fathers” on equal footing with the apostles of Christ. They are not apostles of Christ, nor were they ever promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit (a promise given only to the apostles). Among men who desire a rule that is opposed by our Lord (see Luke 22:25-26), it would be necessary for them to establish the succession of apostolic authority to be taken seriously. This is exactly what they did.