Thank-you for clarifying, James...
!
Thekkla, I like your idea of an inward liberation theology as a descriptor of the Christian walk. Also, respect for the Truth of the Spirit does dictate that any "new" thinking should be suspect, though faith that the Spirit lives should also create a sense of expecting that New Song to be heard somewhere somehow, which actually I think is a very part of the sobriety you are speaking of.
When it comes to speculation about the Book of Revelation or things eschatological there is plenty that is new, because it pertains to questions about the future but is often filled with people's opinions and seems a side issue, entertaining more than worshipfull, and I don't wish to fall into that so much as grow in understanding.
I think I should say regarding my own comments about Vladimir Putin, that I do not think that he is the antichrist. I simply don't rule it out. It is sobering to think that our own church could take place in the negative part of an end time event like this. But it is certainly nothing new that the church has persecuted her prophets.
I don't know how you count the gulags and the Soviet death camps we saw from 1917-1987 as a question of systematic persecution of Christians, but it was primarily Russia that was in charge during her personal Babylon. So what I am saying is that many of these same people who were in charge back then are still alive today and have not necessarily abandoned their vision of utopia so to the Russians, especially those who look for a new Tsar to defend their Orthodoxy, do be sober minded and be mindful of the Scriptures because the relevancy of this book may be greater and nearer than you think.
All it really takes is one person who knows how to work the system and then exercise power when they want. So my example is just that. It is speculative and it is an example but it is with the intention of brining out an irony. I will not argue political points or try to point a finger. Actually I don't know that much about Russian politics or Russian-Georgian relations. Like most people I hope for a time of peace and a continued thawing in the cold war. But the Lord knows what is true.
The subject here is the knowledge of the Scriptures, which includes the book of Revelation. And there is a certain continuity that exists between the ECFs and the ROC, as the EOC loves the fathers on the one hand and seems to have been unaware of just how many of the earliest fathers espoused the chiliasm they now reject on the other hand. When it comes to the knowledge of the Scriptures, we will probably wind up with a lengthy discussion of OT fulfillment and "Judaic" ways of thinking, as I intend to explore what Bishop Nepos probably used to teach as a way of discussing the depth of knowledge of the ECFs.
The ironies don't end there. The ECFs came to the knowledge of this book, and there were also oral traditions, which no doubt carried forward through oral prophecies. The ecclesial paradigm of the EOC is to place Scripture and Tradition together as one. So oral prophecies are no doubt a part of it. The daughters of Phillip and Quadratus were mentioned by Eusebius, who probably would have mentioned others, except by his day, most prophets of the oral type had migrated over to the Montanists, while those critical of oral prophecies had turned to the Scriptures alone or to their tradition (mostly both and they were the same anyway). Others and perhaps some of these, certainly not all, were as St. Basil put it, pnuematomachian. This I think he meant both with respect to the Imminant and the Emmanant side of the Trinity, so as to say, as St. Symeon the New Theologian reiterated, that the Spirit was systematically denied a place in the life of the believer by certain individuals in the church, which is a heresy.
The EOC is inherently pentecostal. The liturgy is all worship, all prayer, even to the point that the sermons and the readings are one with the service of worship. Some find this in it. Others, overlook it and find it to be barren repetitive superstitious ritual, scripture-filled as it may be. My point of bringing this up is at the heart of this topic, as I see it, which pertains to the knowledge of the early fathers of the Scriptures. In the apostolic age, this was necessarily oral, as even a Solo Scriptura Christian would agree. In the years following there was some sort of transition - an oral phase where a gradual knowledge of the NT and NT candidate writings came into place. It was precisely at that time that liturgical worship began to take a specifically Christian form of gradual formalization, though there was variety at first, and I don't exclude the Montanists from that picture in total as the Body of Christ. In other words, there was something like modern Pentecostal worship in the early church alongside other ways of expressing worship. All of it, because the lex orandi lex credendi so to speak, which was both the language of Scripture OT and NT and the knowledge they possessed at that time, was always in a mixed context, where gnostics and others, confused by the many competing religions, had to be taught.
Discernment was required.
It was in the midst of all that that the elders were turned to. And then what was to be made of this Book of Revelation? It sounded so similar to other apocalyptic writings, and to the many oral apocalyptic prophecies that no doubt sprang up in hundreds of house churches, especially among Montanists, but also Jewish cults and the Sybls from even the time before Christ, who even prophecied rightly concerning the Messiah. Read what the Lactantius records of the writings of these Sybls. To him they were a proof to the Emperor concerning the Christ just as strong as anything found in the OT.
Whatever knowledge the ECFs and the early Christians had what they definitely possessed that we don't is a tested discernment. Today, we have a Bible and we have great ecumentical councils and writings everyone can look back to and verify without even questioning what is what. Them, all they had were these oral traditions and their worship and their elders.
Now add to this the fact that teaching about the end times was only partially pertinent.
Pertinency is a factor. We don't see much teaching among Christians about such topics as Jewish cleansing laws for much the same reason. Pertinency is one reason why there wasn't much teaching on how to interpret eschatological things. Eschatology was not completely relevant for their time.
I think that the Syrians understood this and made a conscious decision not to use the Apocalypse of John in their churches, not because they did not see it as inspired or doubted its authorship, but because they did not see it as pertinent to their day. It is for the same reason that much of the Old Testament was always glossed over by most of the church from the third and fourth century forward. As Paul stated, it is "until the time of the gentiles is fulfilled." What is left that is pertinent is for another generation. Everything else is contained in the NT. It was a pastoral decision that actually makes some sense. There is a time for war. There is a time for peace. There is a time for laughter. There is a time for mourning. There is a time for eschatology. There is a time for allegory.
The unfortunate result, however, is that the Church fell into a total replacement theology and dogmatized their amillenialism so that the book of Revelation wold be no more than an alternate way to express liturgical worship, and a book which did prove a source text for parts of the liturgy. The result is that she failed to develop a complete eschatological commentary that integrates the whole Bible, and not just select parts that are self-promoting and/or sobering to the faithful.
What we wind up with can be summarized in Engleman's
Ultimate Things. This stands in contrast to an eschatology that understands the role of the Jews in the last days, and of the many as yet unfilled OT prophecies, that would result in something like what Bishop Nepos probably argued in favor of to a Hellenized primarily gentile church that had lost touch with her Judaic roots, and even rejected the book of Revelation for that reason.
The problem with having a missing history of developed commentary is that you've got to utilize that segment of Tradition alone that we call Scripture. It can still be looked at as through the looking glass that the Philokalia can be to Scriptures everywhere else, but there is enough of a void in later Tradition that it will seem almost speculative to jump into it and attempt to uncover every jot and tittle.
It is very telling that Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria, in arguing with Bishop Nepos, doubted the authorship by John the Evangelist. It does not leave Tradition with a clear upper hand in a very enticing historical snippet, especially for those who have spent much time praying for the Holy Spirit's discernment with regard to prophecy, as doing so is very much necessary in a world environment where Christians of many denominations are communicating with each other with the hope of sharing the treasure they have found.
So we come to the Twenty First Century and the Internet and a church that has similarly many expressions and there are various ways of looking at this, some positive, some negative. But we are in the information age, and I find it a fascinating question whether the ECFs knew more than we do now, because there was a great variety of knowledge back then as there is today. They had the advantage of being able to consult elders that we don't have. We have the advantage of knowing which writings were authentic and we possess the writings of the ECFs and others too. We are living in a far more analytical age. And just as then, we have a mixture of people who follow the spirit and others who are more heady. And no matter which side of the spectrum we may fall on ourselves, we find ourselves communicating with both types, sharing the Christian experience, growing together, though I know that many view this as a form of evangelism.
Looking at the Protestants mainly, what surprises me is that despite the fact that this information is available, there are so many who dismiss the ECFs as irrelevant because they do not have the benefit of being part of the canon of holy writ. And then I realize the political and economic dynamics involved and see that they are historically and materially opposed to the RCC and those episcopal churches which seek to dominate and create a priestly class that is exclusive and has control of the money so those retaining protestant ideas or leading protestant churches can't join the club and share in the profits or control.
It's a sad thought. Again, I don't mean to overgeneralize. And there are exceptions.
So in other threads here I've seen some Protestants attempt to show how the ECFs were actually more like modern day Baptists. This is very rare. But I'm glad that they do it because at least it shows they have an interest and don't find them to be completely irrelevant to discerning the Scriptures or more importantly the revelation of Christ, (the latter meaning our relationship in worship and faith in the knowledge of Him, ie church).
The poll question is perhaps wrong. It really doesn't matter who knew more. What I'd like to see is a new discovery of the mind of the apostles, as this is the same means the whole people of God has had from the start to learning the mind of Christ. When a person asks for the gift from the Father that He will not refuse, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth will guide as a Helper and use what we can learn from these ECFs and from other historical sources to learn the mind of the apostles and of Christ. In that day, I believe the hearts of the fathers will be restored to the children and the children to the fathers (Mal 4:5-6).
Notice that the reunion is two-way. So let me add
In that day, they also will not be confused when one such as the anti-christ comes. Even if they fully love their Orthodox Church or their Catholic Church, they will not be fooled when the one who has made a covenant to support them and enjoyed great prestige thereby also asks them to take a mark on their hand as a protection against terrorism and rebels. They will not confuse the restrainer with the antichrist in that day.
I will end this post on that thought and look forward to a discussion of OT knowledge in the ECFs as I suspect that the teaching of Bishop Nepos was fully integrated and I find this to be lacking in most modern Christianity. The report from Bishop Dionysius indicates that he was a very reasonable man who poured through the Scriptures in their dialog.
