Do Modern Christians undervalue Christian History?

[Tutorman]

I was asked a friend if she knew about the Council of Nicea and the Nicene Creed and she had no idea what was that about. Have churches underestimated the Church Fathers and important events in Christianity?

Decidedly so, many modern evangelicals have no idea there is such a thing as Christian history because if it is not in their book than they will not believe it. It is a real shame how they have an aversion to history. Now I do believe that Calvinist and many major Protestant Church know Christian history but not your average evangelical

 

[Not David]

And how do you know which church is inspired by God? Does the true church come with an inspired imprimatur? Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Coptic, Syrian, how would one know which one is true? Your post implies that we don't really have to think about it, just accept God's authority, but how do you decide which church has preserved the faith?

By reading History. Otherwise you end up with Restoration movements like Islam or Mormonism.
Also, using your point, how do you know the books of the New Testament we're written by the Apostles? They didn't have their name written in those books. Even you use tradition for that.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I was asked a friend if she knew about the Council of Nicea and the Nicene Creed and she had no idea what was that about. Have churches underestimated the Church Fathers and important events in Christianity?

Simple answer is that if you don't know where you have come from on your journey; how can you know how to get where you are going.

Biggest issue in the Church today; lost souls following people who have no idea where they are going, and often times, where they want to be.

 

[Not David]

From the content which I've analyzed I've concluded that Hebrews was written by Paul. The historic record of Jesus and his apostles, along with the writings of the apostles, these I reckon scripture. Doesn't take a council of religious celebrities to figure that out.

The irony of using authority and ideas that aren't in the Bible.

 

[Not David]

Decidedly so, many modern evangelicals have no idea there is such a thing as Christian history because if it is not in their book than they will not believe it. It is a real shame how they have an aversion to history. Now I do believe that Calvinist and many major Protestant Church know Christian history but not your average evangelical

I confess I have been guilty of that ignorance until I took a college course in History of Christianity.

 

[timtams]

By reading History. Otherwise you end up with Restoration movements like Islam or Mormonism.
Also, using your point, how do you know the books of the New Testament we're written by the Apostles? They didn't have their name written in those books. Even you use tradition for that.

So how does history judge between Rome and the East?
Yes, I use tradition. I never said I don't. The catholic tradition of the early church, not the later innovations of Rome and the East.

 

[grandvizier1006]

The answer to this question is yes. Of course I'll admit I know very little about Christianity's history as well, but I'd certainly love to take the time to learn.

 

[RDKirk]

What should it really matter what the "Council of Nicea" or any other council or post-Biblical theologians said? Yes, there's been a great deal of deviation from Biblical Christianity due to such religious celebrities. More to the point is whether such people and councils should be reckoned infallible and not allowed to be subject to scrutiny in light of scripture.

Many of us simply don't go along with the post-Biblical Magisterial concept, replacing the scriptures with the ponderings of a religious elite class.

It's not a matter of automatically considering them infallible, it's a matter of understanding that in 2000 years, all the big issues have already been argued, and realizing that nobody is coming up with any new arguments now.

It's like someone starting a thread saying, "I just found this hidden Gospel of Thomas, and it says this!" as though he'd discovered something nobody had ever read or discussed over the last 2000 years.

It's a matter of looking at the issues when they actually were new, seeing what the arguments were, seeing what the conclusions were, and determining if these new disputants are actually bringing a new argument to the table.

Which they never are.

 

[RDKirk]

Yeah, and you trust the Church to make the right decision in selecting those books. You know that the Epistle to Hebrews is anonymous? How do you know that one is inspired by God? Does the Bible have an inspired table of contents?

What we do know is that people who knew the apostles, or who were only one degree separated from the apostles, readily accepted Hebrews even though its authorship is unknown.

Yes, the "table of contents" of the bible is, indeed, inspired. The "memoirs of the apostles" that were accepted as early as 95 AD and fully accepted by 140 AD--by people who knew the apostles or were no more than 1 degree of separation from the apostles--are what later councils codified as canon. There weren't any brawls in the aisles over their place, even if there was dispute over their authorship.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

I also love Christian History.

 

[bcbsr]

The irony of using authority and ideas that aren't in the Bible.

1Th 2:13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

 

[bcbsr]

It's not a matter of automatically considering them infallible, it's a matter of understanding that in 2000 years, all the big issues have already been argued, and realizing that nobody is coming up with any new arguments now.

It's like someone starting a thread saying, "I just found this hidden Gospel of Thomas, and it says this!" as though he'd discovered something nobody had ever read or discussed over the last 2000 years.

It's a matter of looking at the issues when they actually were new, seeing what the arguments were, seeing what the conclusions were, and determining if these new disputants are actually bringing a new argument to the table.

Which they never are.

And yet after 2000 years there is in fact not complete agreement even on the fundamentals concerning salvation. Somehow the first Century Christians didn't need 2000 years of debate. How could that be? Maybe the teachings of Jesus and his apostles were sufficient (Just as they are today)

 

[dreadnought]

I was asked a friend if she knew about the Council of Nicea and the Nicene Creed and she had no idea what was that about. Have churches underestimated the Church Fathers and important events in Christianity?

Christian history is nice, but I think the Bible supplies us with all we need to know.

 

[Greg J.]

Most people who think they're just reading the Bible actually understand it in light of their tradition. This is true even of people who think they don't have traditions, because they actually do. One advantage of history is that it helps you understand where your tradition came from and see alternatives.

My experience was probably not that common. My "tradition" was noticing Jesus was a big deal to people and wondering why. I read the Bible an hour a day for a year on my own then accepted Jesus as Lord. I didn't get the prod of the Holy Spirit to attend a church for a couple more years after that. I had found more than enough to concern myself with in Scripture. Subsequently the traditions of men have never meant much to me. They are simply choices of how a local body chooses to obey the Lord, the basics of which are pretty widespread. Note that some things are not traditions of men, such as teaching, baptism, and communion. However, I also have been more isolated from people than is good, before and after salvation, but that's not really the result of my choices.

 

[RDKirk]

And yet after 2000 years there is in fact not complete agreement even on the fundamentals concerning salvation. Somehow the first Century Christians didn't need 2000 years of debate. How could that be? Maybe the teachings of Jesus and his apostles were sufficient (Just as they are today)

The first century Christians did come to agreement on issues that are being argued today only because people who are ignorant of the fact that the matters were settled keep renewing debates that were settled long ago--because they're ignorant of the old arguments and think they've come up with something new.

Otherwise, people are debating what Paul called in Romans 14 "disputable matters"--things that didn't have an answer then, don't have an answer now, and in fact don't need an answer with respect to salvation or the subsequent behavior of the saved.

Paul told us not to create factions over these "disputable matters," but, alas, we totally did.

 

[OzSpen]

What should it really matter what the "Council of Nicea" or any other council or post-Biblical theologians said? Yes, there's been a great deal of deviation from Biblical Christianity due to such religious celebrities. More to the point is whether such people and councils should be reckoned infallible and not allowed to be subject to scrutiny in light of scripture.

Many of us simply don't go along with the post-Biblical Magisterial concept, replacing the scriptures with the ponderings of a religious elite class.

bcbsr,

What was taught in the early church through Councils and early church theologians and apologists matters because:

1. God gave Bible teachers to the church for a purpose: 'It was he who gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is, to build up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God—a mature person, attaining to the measure of Christ’s full stature' (Eph 4:11-13 NET).
2. I need the teaching from the Councils and church theologians so that I am equipped for ministry and grow to be a mature person in Christ.
3. But there is a condition that must be placed on any pastor-teacher's ministry: 'These Jews [at Berea] were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they eagerly received the message, examining the scriptures carefully every day to see if these things were so' (Acts 17:11 NET).
4. If these Berean Christians needed to check out Paul's ministry and how his messages conformed with Scripture, we should do the same with church Councils and theologians of the past as well as teachers of today.
5. For example, the Council of Nicea addressed the heresy of Arius (Arianism, which the church is facing even now).

Arianism is a heresy named for Arius, a priest and false teacher in the early fourth century AD in Alexandria, Egypt. One of the earliest and probably the most important item of debate among early Christians was the subject of Christ’s deity. Was Jesus truly God in the flesh, or was Jesus a created being? Was Jesus God or not? Arius denied the deity of the Son of God, holding that Jesus was created by God as the first act of creation and that the nature of Christ was anomoios (“unlike”) that of God the Father. Arianism, then, is the view that Jesus is a finite created being with some divine attributes, but He is not eternal and not divine in and of Himself (What is Arianism? GotQuestions).​

Contemporary 'Arians' will knock on your door as Mormons and JWs. Christadelphians also believe that Jesus was not God.' Jesus Only / Oneness Pentecostals are generally understood to be modalists.

Therefore, what was taught at the Councils of the church or by theologians and apologists of early Christianity equip us for the ministry of polemics / apologetics. Here are Three Rules of Polemics.

While polemics deals with false doctrine in the church, in my ministry I can't differentiate between apologetics (defending the faith in a secular culture) and polemics (addressing doctrine in the church). These disciplines overlap, in my understanding.

Consistent with the OP, I'm of the view that Christians either are not conversant with Christian history or undervalue it.

To do this will lead to repeating the same doctrinal errors that have been successfully addressed in the past, but judging these writings with an Acts 17:11 mindset.

Oz

 

[NW82]

I was asked a friend if she knew about the Council of Nicea and the Nicene Creed and she had no idea what was that about. Have churches underestimated the Church Fathers and important events in Christianity?

Depends on what you mean by value. I think there is a balance. Some people place too much into Church history, to the point of venerating the early Church leaders. Others don't even know about them. We are not supposed to revere or hold in high esteem any other than God/Christ/Holy Spirit, end of story. Proof is in Revelation 22:8-9 and Acts 3:11-13. Should we know the history, yes. Should we take it beyond knowledge of the historical facts, no.

 

[Not David]

1Th 2:13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

I don't deny that the Bible is inspired but it can be twisted to mean whatever you want.

 

[Not David]

My experience was probably not that common. My "tradition" was noticing Jesus was a big deal to people and wondering why. I read the Bible an hour a day for a year on my own then accepted Jesus as Lord. I didn't get the prod of the Holy Spirit to attend a church for a couple more years after that. I had found more than enough to concern myself with in Scripture. Subsequently the traditions of men have never meant much to me. They are simply choices of how a local body chooses to obey the Lord, the basics of which are pretty widespread. Note that some things are not traditions of men, such as teaching, baptism, and communion. However, I also have been more isolated from people than is good, before and after salvation, but that's not really the result of my choices.

The problem is that both Baptism and Communion have been changed to support man-made ideas.

 

[bcbsr]

bcbsr,

What was taught in the early church through Councils and early church theologians and apologists matters because:

1. God gave Bible teachers to the church for a purpose: 'It was he who gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is, to build up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God—a mature person, attaining to the measure of Christ’s full stature' (Eph 4:11-13 NET).
2. I need the teaching from the Councils and church theologians so that I am equipped for ministry and grow to be a mature person in Christ.
3. But there is a condition that must be placed on any pastor-teacher's ministry: 'These Jews [at Berea] were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they eagerly received the message, examining the scriptures carefully every day to see if these things were so' (Acts 17:11 NET).
4. If these Berean Christians needed to check out Paul's ministry and how his messages conformed with Scripture, we should do the same with church Councils and theologians of the past as well as teachers of today.
5. For example, the Council of Nicea addressed the heresy of Arius (Arianism, which the church is facing even now).

Arianism is a heresy named for Arius, a priest and false teacher in the early fourth century AD in Alexandria, Egypt. One of the earliest and probably the most important item of debate among early Christians was the subject of Christ’s deity. Was Jesus truly God in the flesh, or was Jesus a created being? Was Jesus God or not? Arius denied the deity of the Son of God, holding that Jesus was created by God as the first act of creation and that the nature of Christ was anomoios (“unlike”) that of God the Father. Arianism, then, is the view that Jesus is a finite created being with some divine attributes, but He is not eternal and not divine in and of Himself (What is Arianism? GotQuestions).​

Contemporary 'Arians' will knock on your door as Mormons and JWs. Christadelphians also believe that Jesus was not God.' Jesus Only / Oneness Pentecostals are generally understood to be modalists.

Therefore, what was taught at the Councils of the church or by theologians and apologists of early Christianity equip us for the ministry of polemics / apologetics. Here are Three Rules of Polemics.

While polemics deals with false doctrine in the church, in my ministry I can't differentiate between apologetics (defending the faith in a secular culture) and polemics (addressing doctrine in the church). These disciplines overlap, in my understanding.

Consistent with the OP, I'm of the view that Christians either are not conversant with Christian history or undervalue it.

To do this will lead to repeating the same doctrinal errors that have been successfully addressed in the past, but judging these writings with an Acts 17:11 mindset.

Oz

I also happen to be a teacher and a Berean.