Posted on 02/28/2015 12:17:20 PM PST by RnMomof7
How much is your church like the ancient church?
That’s a popular question these days—especially if you read guys like Robert Webber, Brian McLaren, Wolfgang Simson, or Frank Viola and George Barna.
Most of the contemporary discussion about the ancient church attempts to show discrepancies between what is now and what was then. The not-so-subtle implication is that there is something very wrong with the contemporary church. Blame Constantine. Blame the Enlightenment. Blame Capitalism. Blame the Fundamentalists. It doesn’t really matter. The only way to fix the church today is to get back to the ancient church.
Based on this premise we are told (by some) that the church needs to be more sacramental, more liturgical, and more mystical. We ought to light candles, burn incense, celebrate the arts, foster community, and avoid conventional church structures (like, especially, preaching). By others, we are told that we need to meet in houses and not church buildings. (And again, cut down on the preaching.)
All of this is proposed on the supposition that these practices characterized the ancient church.
Really?
Is that what the ancient church was like? And have theologically-conservative, Bible-believing churches in America gone so far off course that the twenty-first century church looks nothing like the early church of the first or second centuries?
Perhaps the best way to answer such questions, rather than perusing modern books on the subject, is to read a description of the ancient church by someone who was actually there.
Enter Justin Martyr.
Justin was born toward the end of the first century. He died in 165 as a martyr for his faith in Jesus Christ.
Around 150, he wrote a defense of the faith to the Roman emperor—called his First Apology—arguing that Christianity should not be illegal. In the course of his defense, he describes what a typical church service was like in his day.
I think you’ll be encouraged to see what was included in an ancient Christian worship service.
(Note that Justin referred to the pastor by the term “president,” namely as the one “presiding” over the worship service. This was likely done because he using terminology that a pagan emperor would understand.)
Justin wrote:
On the day called Sunday there is a gathering together in the same place of all who live in a given city or rural district. The memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then when the reader ceases, the president [pastor] in a discourse admonishes and urges the imitation of these good things. Next we all rise together and send up prayers.
When we cease from our prayer, bread is presented and wine and water. The president in the same manner sends up prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people sing out their assent, saying the ‘Amen.’ A distribution and participation of the elements for which thanks have been given is made to each person, and to those who are not present they are sent by the deacons.
Those who have means and are willing, each according to his own choice, gives what he wills, and what is collected is deposited with the president. He provides for the orphans and widows, those who are in need on account of sickness or some other cause, those who are in bonds, strangers who are sojourning, and in a word he becomes the protector of all who are in need.But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration. (First Apology, 67)
Per Justin’s description, we get a pretty good idea of what took place in an ancient Christian church service. Notice at least seven important factors: (1) Scripture was read, from both the New Testament (“the memoirs of the apostles”) and the Old Testament (“the writings of the prophets”). (2) The pastor preached a message (“discourse”), exhorting the people to obey the things they had just heard from the Scripture. (3) The congregation prayed together. (4) The congregation participated in commemorating the Lord’s Supper. (5) In their preparation for Communion, the pastor prayed and the congregation sang songs of affirmation. (6) An offering was taken in order to meet the needs of fellow saints. (7) All of this took place on Sunday, the day on which Jesus rose from the dead.
When I read Justin’s description I am encouraged, because those same things are found at my church too. Like the ancient church described here, we read the Scripture, listen to preaching, pray, sing, give, and regularly celebrate the Lord’s Table. And, of course, we also meet on Sundays.
When contemporary authors argue that the church needs to get back to the “ancient practices” of the church, my question is: What “ancient practices” are they talking about? The sacramental mysticism of the medieval period perhaps?
If you really want the ancient church, it doesn’t get any more ancient than the quote provided above. In fact, Justin’s description of an ancient church service is the earliest we have outside the New Testament.
So, should we get back to the practices of the ancient church? If this passage from Justin provides the model, I’m all for it.
Not a compelling witness at all...Don't you guys pay attention to the words that are presented to you???
and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.
Washed with the washing??? Regeneration is the washing...Didn't Justin read the bible???
but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God
Jesus Christ IS the Word of God...Jesus was God manifest in the flesh...
had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished
Again, there's the 14th Century word used in the 2nd Century...
We Christians are not looking for nourishment of our flesh and blood...I get that from a slice of meatloaf and an apple...
have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;
1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Since most Catholic don't read scripture, they wouldn't know that Justin seriously misquoted scripture here...Why would Justin do that???
Jesus did not pray and say, 'do this in remembrance of me'...Jesus said EAT, and do this in remembrance of me...Little odd, wouldn't you say???
Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
Uh, the Roman Mithras sun god worship goes back to at least 1 BC...So who copied from who???
I don't think I'd put much stock at all in what Justin Martyr ever said...
**5) did the Church that met on the first Pentecost know that Jesus was indeed going to return to earth to sit on the throne of His father David? That this means the royal lineage of David must continue to the day He returns? (Luke 1:32, Acts 2:29-30!, Acts 15:16, Amos 9:11)**
From the birth of Christ, until he returns from heaven, there is no continued royal lineage following Him, seeing he ever liveth. All that preceded him died, and stayed dead.
Even that would not have changed anything for Jesus and the apostles prior to Christ’s death and resurrection. Jesus and the apostles were all Jews and bound under the Old Testament laws. The included God’s command NOT to eat blood even of the sacrifice.
Acts 2:11”....we do hear them speak in our tongues THE WONDERFUL WORKS OF GOD”.
“And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking of bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, PRAISING GOD,....”. Acts 2:46,47
Is praise of God not worship, in your mindset?
I suppose you would never consider the FACT that the God who commanded “drink my blood” is the same God who gave those dietary laws to Israel?
That He was doing a new thing?
Estin- is 3rd person singular active indicative in Greek
Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."
Mat 3:17 kai idou fwnh ek twn ouranwn legousa outov estin o uiov mou o agaphtov en w eudokhsa
So, is Jesus the Son of God, or does he represent the son of God? Mat 17:5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"
Mat 17:5 eti autou lalountov idou nefelh fwteinh epeskiasen autouv kai idou fwnh ek thv nefelhv legousa outov estin o uiov mou o agaphtov en w eudokhsa tsbautou akouete aautou
Again, is Jesus the Son of God, or does he represent the son of God?
Mat 26:26 And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
Mat 26:26 esqiontwn de autwn labwn o ihsouv ton arton kai euxaristhsav euloghsav eklasen kai douv edidou toiv maqhtaiv tsbkai eipen labete fagete touto estin to swma mou
This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.
Mat 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Mat 26:28 touto gar estin to aima mou to thv kainhv diaqhkhv to peri pollwn ekxunnomenon ekxunomenon eiv afesin amartiwn
This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.
Mar 9:7 And there came a cloud overshadowing them: and there came a voice out of the cloud, This is my beloved Son: hear ye him.
Mar 9:7 καὶ ἐγένετο νεφέλη ἐπισκιάζουσα αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἦλθε φωνή ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης λέγουσα· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός· αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε.
This is the same estin, did Jesus represent God’s son, was He a metaphor for God’s son? Mar 14:22 And while they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it; and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is My body."
Mar 14:22 kai esqiontwn autwn labwn o ihsouv arton euloghsav eklasen kai edwken autoiv kai eipen labete fagete touto estin to swma mou
This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.
Mar 14:24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
Mar 14:24 kai eipen autoiv touto estin to aima mou to thv kainhv diaqhkhv to ekxunnomenon uper peri pollwn ekxunomenon
This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.
Luk_9:35 And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my Son, my chosen: hear ye him.
Luk 9:35 καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης λέγουσα· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός· αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε.
This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.
Joh_15:12 This is my commandment, that ye love one another, even as I have loved you.
Joh 15:12 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ ἐμή, ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους καθὼς ἡγάπησα ὑμᾶς.
Same estin was this the commandment of Jesus or did t represent or was a metaphor for His commandment?
Is = Is. In English and Greek. Your man made tradition says Is = represents.
Now I know that one of the prots will toss out "I am the Door" or "I am the vine" and then make the statement "Was He a literal door or vine"
They might not realize that in every language there is a big difference between "is" and "am".
For instance: This is my car is a literal expression, while I am a car is purely figurative.
Subtlety is lost on prots.
Jesus couldn't change any law until it had been fulfilled.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
To fulfil the law of the sacrifice the blood had to be sprinkled on the altar and the rest spilled on the ground and not eaten.
Even garments that had been splattered with blood were to be washed before they left the sanctuary.
Leviticus 6:27 ...and if any of the blood is spattered on a garment, you must wash it in the sanctuary area.
No blood was EVER to be eaten.
Why keep dancing around the truth that Jesus and the apostles would have been sinning by eating blood?
The money quote; it seems to me you are still searching for an authentic Christianity.
Don-O answered your baseless charge post 105.
Isn’t ironic that some people will say the dumbest things and STILL think they are smart?
No, he didn't. Jesus couldn't change anything until the old had been fulfilled.
What a goofy question...
Lev 17:10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Lev 17:12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
Lev 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
The shed blood is for an atonement, not to drink...
Jesus threw a horsehoe into the your wringer when he switched around here...
Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
Just as Jesus tells us that the blood is really the fruit of the vine, Mat_26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom., Jesus tells us that it is the CUP, not its contents that are significant...
When in fact it really is fruit of the grape, it could well be anything...It could be tomato juice or hot chocolate...Just as the bread could be Japanese rye bread or a Brazilian bagel...
What's important is that we break bread and eat it and take a cup of some liquid and contemplate the death of Jesus while doing so...
And it's possibly somewhat magical in a sense since every time we eat some bread or a sandwich and drink some liquid, we have the opportunity to be reminded of Jesus on the Cross...
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
It is by the shedding of his blood, not drinking it that we have been redeemed...
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, (not drinking blood) for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance
Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Your religion offers this so-called sacrifice to God numerous times every day (which is odd since the apostles did not offer Jesus as a sacrifice)...All sin was put away from that one time sacrifice...
Your religion would fold like a cheap deck of cards if it accepted and taught that truth of the scriptures...
Zec 9:11 As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.
So you figure when Jesus went down to Abraham's Bosom and set the captives free he was carrying a bottle of Mogan David and a loaf of French bread in his spiritual pockets??? Or was the shed blood on the Cross enough to set these prisoners free???
We eat his flesh and drink his blood, spiritually as it is intended...
Does the blood participate with you??? I wasn't aware that blood was that active...
Now if you were to say you (spiritually) participated in the death of Jesus which resulted in the shed blood, that would make sense...But participate in the blood??? Not so much...
It is disputed, or outright rejected in the apostolic memoirs that Justin claims to have read...
eat it up
κατεσθίω
katesthiō
kat-es-thee'-o
From G2596 and G2068 (including its alternate); to eat down, that is, devour (literally or figuratively): - devour.
Your point is???
OH YAH...BIG DIFFERENCE...
is - used for singular pronouns EXCEPT I.
example: He is brushing his teeth.
am - used for the pronoun I.
example: I am four_eyed_ninja.
It would destroy their unbiblical religion...
I don't know why you would say that...The authentic Christianity is found in the scriptures, alone...I have found it...
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.