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.
So we really won’t be raised? It will only be a likeness?
Where did I ever say it "symbolized" blood? Christ said it was a remembrance of His shed blood. He didn't say it was in reality His physical shed blood.
Now, you still haven't answered by question.
"Why do Catholics assign the sin of eating blood to Jesus then still try to claim He was sinless?"
Ya know he was Catholic right?
From Wikipedia: Justin Martyr, also known as Saint Justin (c. 100 – 165 AD), was an early Christian apologist, and is regarded as the foremost interpreter of the theory of the Logos in the 2nd century.[2] He was martyred, alongside some of his students, and is considered a saint by the Roman Catholic Church,[3] the Anglican Church,[4] and the Eastern Orthodox Church.[5]
Since Justin Martyr devoted a chapter of his Apology to the matter, and placed it in sequence with what the service was, he certainly believed it was an integral part of the service.
The author of the OP purports to "get back to the ancient church." He gets back to something; but it's not to the church that Justin Martyr was writing about.
Your argument is with St Paul, not me.
No. Priesthood , no mass
I have to wonder where Justin Martyr (or those before him) came up with the word or even concept of the word 'transmutation' back in the 2nd Century...
Origin of TRANSMUTATION Middle English transmutacioun, from Anglo-French or Latin; Anglo-French transmutacion, from Latin transmutation-, transmutatio, from transmutare
First Known Use: 14th century
I wonder what Justin Martyr really said, or if he said anything at all...
http://www.bpnews.net/38731/the-lords-supper-who-should-partake
The unleavened bread is a symbol of the perfection of the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ in His body, soul and spirit. The fruit of the vine symbolizes the substitutionary, propitiatory and covenantal blood of an innocent sacrifice, shed for the remission of the sins of the guilty
Obviously because the words of God, the written scriptures are of no authority nor consequence to them...They are meaningless to Catholics except where and when used by their religion...
How do you participate with blood??? Is that like participating with a car when you drive it???
If the Jesus you serve sinned by eating blood while being subject to the Old Testament laws there's a problem.
Well, the author of the article thought he had something to say when he was selectively snipping in support of his own position.
But, there is always the option of stopping up ones ears and declaring, "I cant's hear you."
It ends up being "another gospel".
And the "priests" they claim don't even qualify to be an "elder" in the New Testament church.
It's no diversion. It is an example of how sola scriptura engenders confusion. You say the SBC is wrong; yet you both CB and the SBC claim the Bible as ultimate and sole authority.
You have impeached the OP's witness and crippled his argument by pointing to the glaring omission. Justin Martyr is a compelling witness for one holy catholic church. It was not lost on me the churches were organized by parishes, so to speak.
Of course it's diversion. I'm talking about what scripture says not what the Baptists say scripture says. God said in scripture not to eat blood. Eating blood would have been a sin against that command. It also says Jesus never sinned. If the Jesus you serve ate blood He would be a sinner.
lol, now you area a Greek scholar?
study harder my friend.......
Obviously because the words of God, the written scriptures are of no authority nor consequence to them...They are meaningless to Catholics except where and when used by their religion
where in the Scriptures does it say that drinking the blood of Christ is a sin??
chapter and verse please
You didn’t answer my question. Did you literally suffer with Christ?
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.