Do Modern Christians undervalue Christian History?

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
My argument was against the idea that Christian History is unimportant. Even you mentioned men of the 2 and 3 Century.

I think studying history is important, but I don't agree that it leads invariably towards a conservative or reactionary religious outlook.

One of the most liberal churches I know of, St. Gregory of Nyssa in San Francisco, uses patristics in their sermons quite a bit.

This book tends to reflect that perspective: https://www.amazon.com/Centuries-Holiness-Spirituality-Refracted-Postmodern/dp/B004JZWSSE
 
Upvote 0

Athanasius377

Out of the deep I called unto thee O Lord
Supporter
Apr 22, 2017
1,370
1,515
Cincinnati
✟702,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
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?
No church has the authority to select any book as inspired. The church recognizes that a book is inspired. And no, no bible has an inspired table of contents. The table on contents are an artifact of inspiration, not the cause. The issue of the canon is far more unsettled for centuries than most realize. James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3rd John, Hebrews and Revelation were disputed or Antilegomena. The council that decreed what the canon consisted of (at least in the West) didn't occur until 1546.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Actually most of the early church theologians were convinced of Paul's authorship. It was not until the skeptical textual criticism of the 19th century casted doubt Paul was the author.
There were doubts in the 2nd Cent in the West.

From the Hermeneia Commentary:

In its earliest attested form, the third-century Chester Beatty papyrus (P46), our text is included, after Romans, among the Pauline epistles. That placement indicates the judgments about the authorship and genre of the work which were current in the Eastern church, or more specifically in Alexandria, by the middle of the second century.

These learned heads of the catechetical school in Alexandria recognized, however, that the work differs substantially from the style of the rest of the Pauline corpus. They preserved the tradition of Pauline authorship by supposing that the apostle was somehow responsible for the content, but a follower or assistant for the style.
...
Pauline authorship was not widely accepted in the West until the fifth century. The authority of Augustine and Jerome, who accepted the authenticity of the text while noting some of the difficulties, carried the day, and from late antiquity onward Hebrews was secure in both halves of the Christian world as a canonical work of Paul.
...
The Muratorian canon, which probably dates from the late second century, does not mention Hebrews. Roman leaders from the same period, such as the presbyter Gaius, do not include Hebrews among Pauline texts, nor does their contemporary, the heresiologist Irenaeus of Lyons.
...
Amidst this widespread rejection of Pauline authorship in the Western church, Tertullian (c. 155–220), perhaps on the basis of some tradition, suggested an alternative candidate, Barnabas.
...
From Wikipedia:

Doubts about Pauline authorship were raised around the end of the second century, predominantly in the West. Tertullian attributed the epistle to Barnabas.[8] Both Gaius of Rome[9] and Hippolytus[10] excluded Hebrews from the works of Paul, the latter attributing it to Clement of Rome.[11] Origen noted that others had claimed Clement or Luke as the author, but he tentatively accepted Pauline authorship and the explanation of Clement of Alexandria.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Epistle_to_the_Hebrews
_____________

Because Hebrews doesn't claim to be by Paul, this shouldn't affect its status in the canon or use by Christians.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,169
US
✟1,440,830.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Because Hebrews doesn't claim to be by Paul, this shouldn't affect its status in the canon or use by Christians.

And hasn't, as far as I can see, except as evidence of the undisputed acceptance of anything Pauline by the early church (to the chagrin of those who want to exorcise Paul from Christianity).
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Muratorian canon, which probably dates from the late second century, does not mention Hebrews. Roman leaders from the same period, such as the presbyter Gaius, do not include Hebrews among Pauline texts, nor does their contemporary, the heresiologist Irenaeus of Lyons.
Was wondering where the source of the above concluded Irenaeus did not view Hebrews Pauline.

Edit: left this out in original post. I ask because in Irenaeus Fragment #37 has the following:

Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to [the declaration of] Malachi the prophet. For, from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; Malachi 1:11as John also declares in the Apocalypse: The incense is the prayers of the saints. Then again, Paul exhorts us to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. Romans 12:1And again, Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips. Hebrews 13:15Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it;
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0

salt-n-light

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 8, 2017
2,607
2,526
32
Rosedale
✟165,859.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
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?

Most do underestimate. I think some denominations that include more sacraments and ceremonious rituals would be more likely have more of an awareness due to exposure.

Keywords :More likely. Not a guaranteed.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Was wondering where the source of the above concluded Irenaeus did not view Hebrews Pauline.
Here's the footnote (which I hadn't read):

"The evidence on Irenaeus is ambiguous. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 5.26) reports that he used Hebrews and Wisdom in a book of discourses, but their status is unclear. Gobarus, according to Photius Bibl. 232 (PG 103.1104), reported that Irenaeus rejected Pauline authorship. Gobarus gives a similar report about Hippolytus, who cites Hebrews at Ref. 6.30.9."

Actually, that evidence seems to point to Irenaeus rejecting Pauline authorship but accepting the canonical status of Hebrews.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here's the footnote (which I hadn't read):

"The evidence on Irenaeus is ambiguous. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 5.26) reports that he used Hebrews and Wisdom in a book of discourses, but their status is unclear. Gobarus, according to Photius Bibl. 232 (PG 103.1104), reported that Irenaeus rejected Pauline authorship. Gobarus gives a similar report about Hippolytus, who cites Hebrews at Ref. 6.30.9."

Actually, that evidence seems to point to Irenaeus rejecting Pauline authorship but accepting the canonical status of Hebrews.
I omitted part of what I wanted to share. Edited post #85 showing Irenaeus Fragment #37. If a genuine work of Irenaeus, he clearly states Hebrews authored by Paul. But again a fragment scholars differ on authenticity.


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0134.htm
 
  • Like
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,169
US
✟1,440,830.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here's the footnote (which I hadn't read):

"The evidence on Irenaeus is ambiguous. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 5.26) reports that he used Hebrews and Wisdom in a book of discourses, but their status is unclear. Gobarus, according to Photius Bibl. 232 (PG 103.1104), reported that Irenaeus rejected Pauline authorship. Gobarus gives a similar report about Hippolytus, who cites Hebrews at Ref. 6.30.9."

Actually, that evidence seems to point to Irenaeus rejecting Pauline authorship but accepting the canonical status of Hebrews.

Which points to what needs to be observed in this discussion. There are two issues addressed by the early Christians regarding Hebrews:

Is it a letter by Paul?

Is it inspired by the Holy Spirit and accepted as scripture?

The second is "yes" even if the first is "no."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,918
Vancouver
✟147,506.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Modern protestants, in their distancing themselves from the Roman Church, have divorced themselves from the history of christianity. The ecumenical councils acted with the full authority given to the apostles by Christ. In separating themselves from the church and those councils they have split themselves into thousands of "denominations", each at odds with the other, mainly over issues resolved within the church long ago.
I don't think that is all that true.
Many Protestants have a very sincere devotion to the history of Christianity, and are most interested in the early Christian beliefs and ideas and modes of faith, before the Church became a branch of empires.

Christian positions run the gamut of course, and many of the critics of Catholic Church are devoid of historical knowledge, but at its best, reform-minded Christians are most interested in what the roots of Christianity are.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I also happen to be a teacher and a Berean.

bcbsr,

That's terrific and I'm pleased you have that approach to understanding Scripture.

However you wrote (above):

What should it really matter what the "Council of Nicea" or any other council or post-Biblical theologians said?... 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.​

Were the decisions made at the Council of Nicea in accordance with orthodox, biblical Christianity?

Were did the Council of Nicea conclusions state that its decisions were 'reckoned infallible'?

Oz
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
bcbsr,

That's terrific and I'm pleased you have that approach to understanding Scripture.

However you wrote (above):

What should it really matter what the "Council of Nicea" or any other council or post-Biblical theologians said?... 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.​

Were the decisions made at the Council of Nicea in accordance with orthodox, biblical Christianity?

Were did the Council of Nicea conclusions state that its decisions were 'reckoned infallible'?

Oz
I mean, if the Council if Trent was a mistake then Christianity would be in big trouble.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,024
3,750
✟287,812.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I've been thinking over this question and it seems to me the question is too vague to give a decisive answer. For instance, are we talking about History of Christianity in general (all of it) or a particular part of it?

Protestants would value their own history with their beginnings in the 16th century more than Catholics or Orthodox would. Lutherans look to Luther and Calvinists look to Calvin. Yet Catholics would value that history more than Orthodox because of how Protestantism erupted from the Catholic world and needs to be addressed.

Orthodox I think tend to value the early Church more than Protestants (in general) because we believe ourselves to be the continuation of that exact Church whereas Many Protestants don't believe themselves to be continuity with that Church. Same goes with Catholics and Orientals looking at the same history.

If you are non-denominational you probably don't care all that much about the history of institutionalized Churches (Christianity) except as an example of how corrupt the whole thing got. So potentially we have people who value the early Church for what we should not do.

So in general It seems to me to come down to which Church you belong to which determines your caring or valuing certain history. There are exceptions to this. I for one care about Catholic History and Protestant history insofar to see their relation to the Orthodox Church or their place in the grand scheme of Christian history.
 
Upvote 0

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,381
5,253
✟816,720.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Lutherans do value all history; the confessional Churches more so. We confessional Lutherans accept the first 7 ecumenical councils, so regarding the issues dealt with by those Fathers and Doctors of the Church; there is not much to discuss; yet in much of reformed protestantism, these same issues are constantly being re-hashed, as though they are brand new.

The more structured Churches; Lutheran, Catholic, Episcopal/Anglican, and Orthodox have taken "lessons learned" from the past and carried them forward; so these Churches do tend to deal with more contemporary issues, and not the foundational issues addressed by the early Church.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Not David
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I've been thinking over this question and it seems to me the question is too vague to give a decisive answer. For instance, are we talking about History of Christianity in general (all of it) or a particular part of it?

Protestants would value their own history with their beginnings in the 16th century more than Catholics or Orthodox would. Lutherans look to Luther and Calvinists look to Calvin. Yet Catholics would value that history more than Orthodox because of how Protestantism erupted from the Catholic world and needs to be addressed.

Orthodox I think tend to value the early Church more than Protestants (in general) because we believe ourselves to be the continuation of that exact Church whereas Many Protestants don't believe themselves to be continuity with that Church. Same goes with Catholics and Orientals looking at the same history.

If you are non-denominational you probably don't care all that much about the history of institutionalized Churches (Christianity) except as an example of how corrupt the whole thing got. So potentially we have people who value the early Church for what we should not do.

So in general It seems to me to come down to which Church you belong to which determines your caring or valuing certain history. There are exceptions to this. I for one care about Catholic History and Protestant history insofar to see their relation to the Orthodox Church or their place in the grand scheme of Christian history.
I was talking about History from the beginning until today.
 
Upvote 0

The Times

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2017
2,581
805
Australia
✟90,081.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Phew! This is the few threads that I read entirely.

I realize that people are not looking where they ought to. People seemed to be trapped in their own bubbles and completely ignoring how God has historically designated players and assigned them functions and permitted inroads to be made historically speaking.

I don't recall God speaking through the lips of the Old Testament writers about today's players.

Let me present to you Isaiah a Jew who like his Old Testament Jewish fellows would loath the Assyrians, because when crunch time came God sent in the Assyrians as the stick from Heaven to disperse and to assimilate the House of Israel and later he would send them to the House of Juda to teach them who's boss (God).

Why would Isaiah a Jew even mention the Assyrians as God's Handy Work?

Without reading, scripture history should suffice.

So why was Jonah a Jew reluctant to warn the Assyrians of Nineveh so that they would NOT be destroyed?

Jonah knew what Isaiah knew and what the entire Old Testament peoples knew of the history that God ordained. God used a player and assigned that player a function and he promised and declared through Isaiah a Jew the same player God will use in the New Covenant Age.

I have now opened a dispute between all of denominational and congregational Christianity with God.

How will you ALL deal with this dispute?

God through Isaiah said...

Isaiah 19:23-25
23In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria. The Assyrians will go to Egypt, and the Egyptians to Assyria. The Egyptians and Assyrians will worship together.

24In that day Israel will join a three-party alliance with Egypt and Assyria—a blessing upon the earth. 25The LORD of Hosts will bless them, saying, “Blessed be Egypt My people, Assyria My handiwork, and Israel My inheritance.”

1st Century context. It historically happened through God's Handy Work.

It was not Rome, all other nations were originally called not God's people back then until the New Covenant where they became a new player called Egypt because they were once pagans (idolaters).

However, the Jews of the 1st Century worked alongside the Assyrians using the same Syriac trade language, spread Christianity far and wide along the silk road, originating from Edessa.

You can not have The Highway of God without God's ordained Handy Work.

The historical fact remains you need to be joined to God's handy work to fill that emptiness that only now Christianity has come to realize, by asking themselves What is missing?

Jesus said the Men of Nineveh The Assyrians will come to condemn this New Covenant generation just as they did the Old Covenant generation.

Can you handle the Truth?

If you want to reopen the Highway as it was before Rome gatecrashed it under their Emperor, then you need to do it through his handy work because historically speaking there is no other way.

I wrote a thread about the origins of Orthodox Christianity to speak to your hearts what we all need to do.

This is the link below...

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-its-routes-from-nineveh-iraq-edessa.8077594/

Watch a short Youtube video below and understand that the biggest Church and her coverage was the Assyrian Church of the East. Today it is the smallest which goes to show the wisdom of God and how he rolls when he will use her once again in the grand finale.

If you come God will rebuild the Highway in a bigger and better way unimaginable to show his glorious Hand in who he declared to be his handy work player through the Old and the New Covenants.


Did you hear in the documentary above at 3:12, that the Chinese were claiming, as written on the Stele Stone, "That there was a Church in every single county of China, 3000 Churches stretched across China".

The Hand of God, the Apostolic Hand........aaaaaaaaa........where did I hear the Holy Spirit mention that before?

3,000 Converts Baptized In One Day!

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." —Acts 2:41

Oh........Apostle Peter.

coincidence.........

N0! Believe that this is the Hand of God.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I mean, if the Council if Trent was a mistake then Christianity would be in big trouble.

Are you bcbsr?

If there were errors that emanated from the Council of Trent, we expose them and move on. If they continue to be promoted, I expose them again as false doctrine when compared with Scripture.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I've been thinking over this question and it seems to me the question is too vague to give a decisive answer. For instance, are we talking about History of Christianity in general (all of it) or a particular part of it?

Protestants would value their own history with their beginnings in the 16th century more than Catholics or Orthodox would. Lutherans look to Luther and Calvinists look to Calvin. Yet Catholics would value that history more than Orthodox because of how Protestantism erupted from the Catholic world and needs to be addressed.

Orthodox I think tend to value the early Church more than Protestants (in general) because we believe ourselves to be the continuation of that exact Church whereas Many Protestants don't believe themselves to be continuity with that Church. Same goes with Catholics and Orientals looking at the same history.

If you are non-denominational you probably don't care all that much about the history of institutionalized Churches (Christianity) except as an example of how corrupt the whole thing got. So potentially we have people who value the early Church for what we should not do.

So in general It seems to me to come down to which Church you belong to which determines your caring or valuing certain history. There are exceptions to this. I for one care about Catholic History and Protestant history insofar to see their relation to the Orthodox Church or their place in the grand scheme of Christian history.
An interesting fact from the Reformation is both Luther and Calvin made appeals to the ancient church for much of their teachings.

The acquaintance of the Reformed theologians with both the Greek and Latin fathers of the church needs no underlining. They ranged widely through their works. Calvin‟s writings are saturated with quotations from the patristic authors. They are his second major source after the Scriptures. No other Reformer has such a wealth of patristic references. Calvin‟s acquaintance with some patristic writings depended on Eusebius and Cassiodorus and his knowledge of church councils and canon law, but many of them he knew first hand.

That's from an introduction to a scholarly paper. Remainder of the paper here:

Church fathers on Covenant.

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/haddington-house-journal/05_025.pdf
 
Upvote 0