Posted on 09/12/2013 4:22:27 AM PDT by imardmd1
In 1962, philosopher-scientist Thomas Kuhn coined the term “paradigm shift” to signal a massive change in the way a community thinks about a particular topic. Examples of paradigm shifts include Copernicus’s discovery that the earth revolves around the sun, Einstein’s theory of relativity, and Darwin’s theory of evolution. Each changed the world of thought (some for better, some for worse) in a fundamental way.
From a political perspective, Constantine’s Edict of Milan, issued in AD 313, constituted the formal beginning of a major paradigm shift that signaled the end of the ancient world and the beginning of the medieval period. That edict legitimated Christianity and impressed upon it the Empire’s stamp of approval.
(snip)
It is a fair question to ask: “Why do we care about the eschatological views of the early church fathers?” We as evangelicals emphatically agree with Hodge that “the true method of theology… assumes that the Bible contains all the facts or truths which form the contents of theology.” As Ryrie cogently put it:
The fact that something was taught in the first century does not make it right (unless taught in the canonical Scriptures), and the fact that something was not taught until the nineteenth century does not make it wrong unless, of course, it is unscriptural.
(snip)
From a theological perspective—specifically an eschatological one—the Edict of Milan also signaled a monumental paradigm shift—from the well-grounded premillennialism of the ancient church fathers to the amillennialism or postmillennialism that would dominate eschatological thinking from the fourth century AD to at least the middle part of the nineteenth century. Yet, as explored below, the groundwork for this shift was laid long before Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in AD 313. In the two centuries that led up to the edict, two crucial interpretive errors found their way into the church that made conditions ripe for the paradigm shift incident to the Edict of Milan. The second century fathers failed to keep clear the biblical distinction between Israel and the church. Then, the third century fathers abandoned a more-or-less literal method of interpreting the Bible in favor of Origen’s allegorical-spiritualized hermeneutic. Once the distinction between Israel and the church became blurred, once a literal hermeneutic was lost, with these foundations removed, the societal changes occasioned by the Edict of Milan caused fourth century fathers to reject premillennialism in favor of Augustinian amillennialism.
(snip)
The crushing blow for premillennialism came with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, by which Constantine reversed the Roman Empire’s policy of hostility toward Christianity and accorded it full legal recognition and even favor. Historian Paul Johnson calls the issuance of this edict “one of the decisive events in world history. With it, no longer was the blood of the martyrs the seed of the church. Rather, Christianity would be, in many ways, a mirror-image of the empire itself. “It was catholic, universal, ecumenical, orderly, international, multi-racial and increasingly legalistic.” It was a huge force for stability. Hence, Christianity after 313 would become worldly, rather than other-worldly.
The church’s new-found favor from Rome caused dramatic upheavals. Jerome complained that “one who was yesterday a catechumen is today a bishop; another moves overnight from the ampitheatre to the church; a man who spent the evening in the circus stands next morning at the altar, and another who was recently a patron of the stage is now the dedicator of virgins.” He wrote that “our walls glitter with gold, and gold gleams upon our ceilings and the capitals of our pillars; yet Christ is dying at our doors in the person of his poor, naked and hungry.”
Thus, the focus of the church changed from looking for ultimate comfort in the world beyond the grave to seeking comfort in this world, in the here and now. Christianity was viewed as “a religion with a glorious past as well as an unlimited future. As a result, it suffered what Johnson called “a receding, indeed, disappearing, eschatology.”
(snip)
The lesson for us is that we must continually guard against interpreting the Bible according to current events—a point often lost on some of dispensational millennialism’s more popular proponents.
The bottom line, of course, is that we must continually go back to the Scriptures as our only source for “doing theology.” As much as we may respect and admire the early church fathers, or, for that matter, the reformers, the puritans, or a particular modern spiritual leader, we must always remember to be Bereans, checking their conclusions and reasoning against the plumb line of God’s Word. No one could put it more clearly or forcefully than Martin Luther as he boldly and defiantly proclaimed before the Diet of Worms: “Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God… Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.”
Yes butter rather than OLeO.
Are they the ones not preserved by The God (at least two of Paul's to the Corinthians, plus certainly many others), containing fallible impurities that were not meant to be affirmed as Scripture by a fallible Church (like the Vatican, Alexandrian, or Sinatic corrupted codices)? God has preserved the Byzantine/Majority Textform through the churches, a plurality of witnesses.
Wrong again, because Jesus did not quote from any of the New Testament Scriptures because they were yet to be written. Additionally, when he does quote from the Old Testament it is invariably from the Septuagint whose canon is accepted by the Catholic Church and rejected by the Protestants
You have not studied the provenance of the LXX you have, analysis of which shows that it was rewritten by the scholars of Christendom to reflect the Holy Ghost-interpreted Hebrew as written by NT Apostles and prophets. There is no LXX as supposed to exist in Jesus' day, regardless of the myths generated to support one.
And the very first thing that the Apostles did after our Lord ascended to heaven was to fill up the vacancy left by Judas.
A great fleshly-promoted attempt at asserting human-generated repairs of Christ's misjudgment in selecting Judas as a disciple. Matthias fails the "chosen by Christ" test, even during the 40-day interval that the risen Jesus walked with them. And Peter ducked the responsibility for the final choice by creating a lots-based system (obviously agreed to by the candidates) that if the selectee didn't work out, The God would supposedly be accountable, not Peter. Then, Christ doubtlessly already had His eye upon the Gamaliel-trained disciple, His enemy, Saul of Tarsus, whom Peter et cie would never have chosen, but who was Christ's finest apostle entrusted with the mission to the Uncircumcised. Peter's limit as set by the Holy Ghost operating through the Jerusalem church and its policy head Mary's son Jacob (James), was to the Jews, not the Gentiles particularly.
Paul shows that the early Church was indeed hierarchical with episkopoi, presbyteroi and diakonoi. These offices continue to exist today.
All elders or ministers, and also evangelists, pastors, and teachers; but NOT aposteloi nor prophetoi, hm?
No, it hearkens back to sarcasm on a thread probably a good year ago.
There’s popecorn, sodapope, poperoni pizza, and popesicles.
Missed it not. Paul had long ago been selected for it by the Savior, spent 3 1/2 years in Arabia being taught by Him, then spent 11 years in Tarsus preparong in that Roman/Greek cosmopolitan university town studying Gentile culture, then commissioned by his church at Antioch for the missionary effort. Antioch was not subservient to Jerusalem, neither was any other local church. In unity, yes. In submission to Jerusalem, no. Nor was any of the churches arising from Paul's evangelistic efforts.
>> “Wrong, because the Apostles wrote additional works that the Church would affirm as Scripture” <<
.
Utter gibberish!
The church does not exist as a visible organized body that could do such things.
When you say ‘church,’ obviously you mean the RCC, but that is about as far from Yeshua’s church as one could possibly get.
New testament ‘scriptures’ are valid only to the extent that they are in full agreement with Torah and Tanakh, and those are what Yeshua gave us to guide us.
The idea that Yeshua quoted from the LXX is folley.
The LXX was injected when the NT writings were translated into Greek, and was done specifically because the Greek translators were not in any way competent in Hebrew language, nor culture, so they punted and substituted the LXX for the actual scriptures. This is solidly proven in the Hebrew mss of Matthew where the actual words of Yeshua are recorded by Matthew who was a true witness.
Of course a catholic will continue in error rather than meet the truth that shatters the house of pagan cards that is catholicism.
>> “That’s right, Constantine found a bunch of pagans, appointed them bishops and all the Christians, after suffering 300 years of persecution, just went along with it.” <<
.
No, Constantine slaughtered enough ‘christians’ to get compliance with the survivors. Fear conquers poorly educated and spiritually weak clergy every time.
I was going by Yeshua’s definition of apostle.
(the one that required him to replace the ill-chosen Mathias with Paul)
>> “And, regarding the continuance of The Faith, it is my contention that the Galatians took Paul’s scolding very seriously, and never followed that line of hypocritical legalism again—that they became the proponents of the Gospel that never bowed/cowed to the so-called theologians of the “catholic” types, and held to the conduct of local autonomous immersionist assemblies governed by strong preaching, the Remembrance Supper, and unfeigned love of the brethren under persecution” <<
.
Yes, except that I suspect that you do not understand that the ‘legalism’ to which Paul objected was not Torah, but the false “oral torah” of the Pharisees of which Paul had been the most excellent paragon until his encounter with Yehova on the Damascus road.
The Galatians that Paul addressed were trying to become Pharisees, much like many of today’s ‘Messianic’ congregations seem to be doing. Paul taught Torah, written on the heart.
>> “the forerunners of today’s Baptists” <<
.
Having been raised in the Baptist church, I can say with certainty that the Baptists reject the scriptures almost as severely as the Papists.
No Cigar!
The Gospels say “ Church. “
The Time Machine Challenge (Protestants / Catholics / Church Fathers)
The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus (Ecumenical)
The Early Church Fathers on the Scriptures: Prayer is Answering the Word of God [Ecumenical]
On the Apostolic Fathers
Fathers vs. the Evangelicals
The Early Church Fathers on the Scriptures: These Words are the Word of God [Ecumenical]
The Early Church Fathers on the Scriptures: The Two Meanings of the Bible [Ecumenical]
The Early Church Fathers on the Scriptures: Guide to the Discovery of Scripture [Ecumenical]
The Early Church Fathers on the Scriptures: Every page of the Bible is a Hymn to Christ [Ecumenical]
The Early Church Fathers on the Scriptures: The Four Gospels [Ecumenical]
The Early Church Fathers on the Scriptures: The Scriptures are one book in Christ [Ecumenical]
The Early Church Fathers on Scripture: The Nourishing Bread of Scripture [Ecumenical]
The Early Church Fathers on the Scriptures: Reading Scripture with the Early Church Fathers [Ecumenical]
Fathers of the Church
Abortion and the Early Church [Fathers] (Catholic & Orthodox Caucus)
Why do Catholics always talk about the Early Church Fathers (Apostolic Fathers)?[Ecumenical]
The Church Fathers' Marian Interpretation of the Old Testament (Catholic Caucus)
Writings of the Fathers of the Church
THE CHURCH FATHERS: A DOOR TO ROME (fundamentalist warns saying they sound too Catholic)
Were the Church Fathers Closer to Protestantism Than to Catholicism?
The Faith of Our Fathers
The Early Church Fathers on the Assumption [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
Look to the Church Fathers to Shed Light on Modern Problems, Writes the Pope
Origen: The Privileged Path to Knowing God Is Love
On Origen of Alexandria: He Was a True Teacher (April 25, 2007)
St. Clement of Alexandria: One of the Great Promoters of Dialogue Between Faith and Reason (April 18, 2007)
St. Irenaeus of Lyons: The First Great Theologian of the Church (March 28, 2007)
Early Church Fathers - Worship on Sabbath or Sunday
St. Justin Martyr: He Considered Christianity the “True Philosophy” (March 21, 2007)
Truly a Doctor of Unity (St. Ignatius of Antioch) (March 14, 2007)
On St. Clement of Rome -The Church Has a Sacramental, Not Political Structure (March 7, 2007)
Quotes from the Early Church Fathers
The Early Church Fathers on Baptism - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on Contraception - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on Justification - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on the Immaculate Conception - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on Confession / Reconciliation - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on The Real Presence - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on Intercession of the Saints - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on Hell - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on The Primacy of Peter/Rome (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)
The Early Church Fathers on The Mother of God - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on Salvation Outside the Church [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
The Early Church Fathers on Purgatory - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on Apostolic Succession - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
Early Church Fathers on (Oral) Tradition - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on The Church (Catholic Caucus)
The Early Church Fathers
So far as we know, the only book that was translated from Hebrew or Aramaic was Matthew. As for the Church, it has has to be visible because it is an organization consisting of human beings, and we are quite visible.
I> 'Scuse me, but in the beginning there was no "Church" as you term it. There were only churches, each with its own appointed elders of spiritually mature leaders (at first discipled Jews), and owing allegiance and dominion to no other entity than The Risen Christ and The Holy Ghost, Who is the Author of the Preserved Text.
or What was the purpose of the Ekklesia ? Was it a temporal corporation to rule on earth ? No ! Was it to have a temporal head ? No ! It was a gathering of YHvH's chosen people to hear His Word ? and learn to Fear YHvH all their days ? And to teach their children the same ? Yes. ------------- Ekklesia is from the Hebrew Qahal (kof, hey, lamed) How does YHvH define "church" i.e.Ekklesia ?
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Is it all those called out by YHvH ?
A study of the word "church", in the Koine Greek : Ekklesia.
Was the "church" started at the YHvH commanded
Feast day of Shavuot (pentecost) as some say ?
Did the "church" exist earlier ?
Using the LXX as a guide we see that the Ekklesia
is first used in Deuteronomy 4:10 NAsbU Deuteronomy 4:10 "Remember the day you stood before YHvH, your God
Also see : Deu 4:10, Deu 9:10, Deu 18:16, Deu 23:3, Deu 23:4, Deu 23:9, Deu 31:30,
at Horeb, when YHvH said to me, 'Assemble the people to Me, that I may let
them hear My words so they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on
the earth, and that they may teach their children.'
Jos 9:2, Jda 20.2, Jda 21:5, Jda 21:8, Jdg 20:2 Jdg 21:5, Jdg 21:8, 1 Sa 17:47,
1 Sa 19:20, 1 Ki 8:14, 1 Ki 8:22, 1 Ki 8:55, 1 Ki 8:65, 1 Ch 13:2, 1 Ch 13:4, 1 Ch 28:2,
1 Ch 28:8 (kof => The HOLY ONE
which is haQahal The assembly (hey, kop, hey, lamed)
hey => grace, breath of G-d
lamed => teaching and learning)
In scripture it is always used to describe
those who have been assembled by YHvH.
It begins in Exodus 16:3 ( the bread from heaven )
and continues to Nehemiah 8:17 (living in Booths) NAsbU Nehemiah 8:17
The entire assembly of those who had returned from
the captivity made booths and lived in them.
The sons of Israel had indeed not done so
from the days of Joshua(Yehoshua)
the son of Nun to that day.
And there was great rejoicing.
Ping.
Um..No they don’t.
No such thing as the word “church” in scripture. It’s “ecclesia” which means "assembly" or "congregation”. God did not give an organization the authority to interpret scripture.
The English word “church” was derived from the Greek word “kyridakon” which wasn’t even used in the Greek during New Testament times and isn’t found anywhere in the New Testament. It didn’t even come into use until around the 16th century. There is no word in the New Testament which can be translated into our understanding of the word “church”. You can find the information in Brown, Colin. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.
While Matthew was most likely originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, the rest of the New Testament was clearly written in Greek. Thus the citations of the Old Testament given in them were indeed given from the Septuagint.
This is solidly proven in the Hebrew mss of Matthew where the actual words of Yeshua are recorded by Matthew who was a true witness.
Now who do you think you are trying to fool. There are no original Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew.
It it was around the Greek word ἐκκλησία and its Latin equivalent ecclesiathat Christian theology developed.
The English word “church” was derived from the Greek word “kyridakon” which wasn’t even used in the Greek during New Testament times and isn’t found anywhere in the New Testament.
Actually it comes from the Greek through the Old English cirice/circe from the West German kirika. Thus its usage, while not in the New Testament, is much older than you would give. But this is all irrelevant since Christian theology was developed in Greek and Latin, not English!
No, RCC theology was developed using Latin. Christian theology was developed around Hebrew and Greek. That apostles did not write in Latin.
>>while not in the New Testament, is much older than you would give.<<
Um, the point is that the concept of what many people think today as “church” was not a concept that was used in the time of the apostles. I don’t care “how old it is”. What the apostles taught is what is to be believed. Nothing else.
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9
Do you believe anything that the apostles didn’t teach?
So Constantine was able to accomplish in a few years what his predecessors could not in 300 years! And he did this under the cover of a Edict of Toleration. Sorry but there is no evidence of such a persecution. You cannot just make up history to fit your preconceived ideas.
I said Christian theology, not the Christian Scriptures. The concept of the ecclesia in the Latin church is the same as ἐκκλησία in the Greek church.
Um, the point is that the concept of what many people think today as “church” was not a concept that was used in the time of the apostles. I don’t care “how old it is”. What the apostles taught is what is to be believed. Nothing else.
No, the point is that the word church is only what English speakers use to render ἐκκλησία/ecclesia which is found in the New Testament. Its etymological derivation is meaningless since the Christian understanding of ἐκκλησία/ecclesia/church predates the English language.
The Greek says *assembly*.
Here's the Greek.
http://biblesuite.com/greek/1577.htm
ekklésia: an assembly, a (religious) congregation
1577 ekklēsía(from 1537 /ek, "out from and to" and 2564 /kaléō, "to call") – properly, people called out from the world and to God, the outcome being the Church (the mystical body of Christ) – i.e. the universal (total) body of believers whom God calls out from the world and into His eternal kingdom.
[The English word "church" comes from the Greek word kyriakos, "belonging to the Lord" (kyrios). 1577 /ekklēsía ("church") is the root of the terms "ecclesiology" and "ecclesiastical."]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.