Mr. Nichols is incorrect on three of those points.
In Matthew 10:1 Jesus summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. At the end of Mattew's gospel Jesus declares he has been given all authority and commands the eleven in what we now call the "Great Commission." Since there are many saved people with diseases and every kind of sickness in the Church and teaching the nations Jesus' commands necessarily includes those brought into the Church (does anyone think the great commission was intended to teach only outsiders the commands of Jesus?) it is demonstrable Jesus appointed "officers" to have authority in the Church and over its members. in 2 Cor. 10:8 wrote about the authority Jesus gave the apostles to build up Paul's readers and in Ephesians 4 Paul stated Jesus had given the Church a list of leaders (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, but the list is probably not exhaustive), specifically for the tasks listed in the passage. The word "elder/presbyter" signifies someone as a leader. The same is true of the word "deacon." In Acts 1 we read of the eleven seeking to replace Judas and they appeal to the prophetic nature of Psalm 109:8's "let another take his office." The Greek word is "episkopé," which means supervisor, overseer, or one having oversight. In Acts 15 we read of Paul and Barnabas coming before the apostles and elders, three of which Paul later refers to as "pillars of the Church." I'll stop here for the sake of space but the point is Jesus did in fact appoint officers and appoint them to have authority in and over other members.
Jesus was once asked which of God's commands were the greatest and his answer to that question, love God and love others. Both commands come from the Law of Moses and the former is a part of the Shema, a Jewish creed. Much of Jesus' teaching found in his gospel sermons come directly from the OT code of rules. It might be correct to say Jesus did not prescribe and
new creeds of code of rules, but it is not correct to say he prescribed none. The Great Commission is a command to teach his commandments! Despite the fact Jesus stated all the law and prophets are built on the two greatest commands, Jesus stated he was giving the apostles a
new command: "
Love one another." Furthermore, if there is no new code of rules then we're all Jews
.
As far as I can recall the only occasion when Jesus ever commanded baptism was in the Great Commission and there he commanded the baptizing of nations, not individuals. In fact, the baptism that Jesus is reported for providing is the baptizing with the Holy Spirit, not that of water. Paul at one point exclaimed Jesus had
not sent him to baptize (only to preach the gospel). In Acts 19 water baptism is called the baptism of John, not the baptism of Jesus. The water baptism the apostles practiced was carried over from John, and John carried it over from the Law of Moses and the ritual washing practices applied to convers to Judaism. When Jesus had his last meal with the apostles he said, "...
do this in remembrance of me." If we ask ourselves to what is the "this" in that sentence referring, the answer is the Passover meal. That makes Jesus saying, "...do the Passover meal in remembrance of me," so he was not prescribing any religious rite that hadn't already been prescribed prior to his incarnation. What he was doing was prescribing new meaning to an old ritual or rite. Jesus did this with other religious rites beside water baptism and the Passover meal. Marriage would be another old religious rite Jesus prescribed for the Church.
All of these things have changed over the centuries and changed to the point that they look much different than during the gospel era and the era of the epistolary (a lot of change occurred between those two time periods and all of those changes are part of Church history). It is kind of ironic he would make these claims since he was a presbyter with authority to teach, one approved of by others holding authority to do so. He's implied his very existence is contrary to the claims he is making about Jesus!
Jesus promised to continue to the end of the world to impart his life to the church. His great gift to his church, we may say, was himself. In him, the church was to find its principles, its aims, its power. He left it free to make for itself forms of organizations and of worship, and statements of belief, and methods of work. His purpose evidently was that the life of his church, that is, his life abiding in his followers, should express itself in any outward ways that might seem to them best for the great end in view.
The growth of the Christian church.
Nichols.
Maybe I am missing something but I'm not seeing how that has much, if anything, to do with the history of the Church. What am I missing? (or is Mr. Nichols simply adding additional exposition not directly related to Church history.
There are a variety of Christian historical books that much will be taken from. So instead of quoting the Historic authors on all pages, I will give some now. There are others.
The growth of the Christian church - Nichols.
History of the Christian Church - Schaff
The history of the great reformation - J. H. Merle D'Aubigne, D.D.
One thing to keep in mind is what Jesus said to the church.
. . . . and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matt 28:20.
You can be sure he did not give the church over to any human; religious leader or pope.
{Edit}For those interested in where the Catholic Church comes on the scene, that starts on page #45.
Schaff is commendable. I also like
Ryan Reeves YouTube series of series on Church history,
W. Robert Godfrey's series, Don't know D'Aubigne. There are two award-winning secular histories of the Church by Diarmaid MacCulloch, "
Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years," and "
The Reformation," but they can be difficult to read because they are very dry reads (overly detailed and dispassionate) and not inherently sympathetic to the faith (MacCulloch is a gay liberal Anglican). Although it has some flaws ad I find its argument wanting, the house church apologetic "
Pagan Christianity," is also filled with historical details about the NT era Church (like the fact there were no Church buildings, not backwards collars, lecterns or stages). Sociologist Rodney Stark's "
The Rise of Christianity" is also very informative (but its a sociological treatise and, therefore, not an ordinary history). "
Reading the Church Fathers: A History of the Early Church and the Development of Doctrine," is sorta good but it's written by an RC and therefore assumes that perspective. Alistair McGrath's "
Historical Christianity: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought," is good up to the 18th century but its weak on the more modern (and very, very substantive changes occurring then) era. Then there is Bart Ehrman's lectures. Mr. Ehrman doesn't know what to do with himself but his lectures on the "proto-gospels" recount some of the misguided influence on Christian thought and doctrine that in-house histories neglect.
I didn't have much interest in history until I took a course in the history of philosophy. Learning what people were thinking when events occurred helped it all make sense.
