Do Modern Christians undervalue Christian History?

[bcbsr]

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

And whose to say that some post-Biblical theologians haven't done exactly that? Perhaps I'm the one to say that.

The scriptures can't actually be twisted to "mean anything you want", if it is interpreted using proper hermeneutics. Even just exercising basic reading comprehension skills goes a long way to getting at the author's intended meaning. (Skills which disturbingly few seem to exercise)

 

[redleghunter]

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?

Unless you go to a Christian school (or Catholic school as I did) you don't get the history of the church very much if at all in public school.

So I would say this is an issue not so much for modern society as it is for post-modern society.

Even in the mid to late 20th century public schools still mentioned the history of Christendom. Now such is viewed as "religious" education. Only place millennials are getting the history of the church is in church or Christian schools.

 

[redleghunter]

Modern protestants, in their distancing themselves from the Roman Church, have divorced themselves from the history of christianity.

I would not say "Protestants" have as that term usually means those from the Reformation.

 

[HTacianas]

I would not say "Protestants" have as that term usually means those from the Reformation.

Those of the reformation, their offspring, their descendants. It's all the same.

 

[redleghunter]

I notice, however, that you used the Council of Nicaea as your example earlier, but the councils that canonized the Bible were not among the Ecumenical Councils that have such prominence in church history. As a result, I doubt that one church member in a hundred--in one of the churches that IS big on church history and tradition--can name the councils that codified Scripture, and I cannot remember ever hearing a sermon about them.

The only council which is considered by the Latin church as ecumenical which addressed the canon was Trent.

As you mentioned there were other regional councils which took up the subject but none ecumenical.

 

[redleghunter]

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?

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.

Case in point from Athanasius in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle of A.D. 367

Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.​

http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html

And if you are Roman Catholic you will know the Council of Trent mentions Paul as author of Hebrews.

 

[redleghunter]

How do you know that one is inspired by God? Does the Bible have an inspired table of contents?

As early as the 2nd century fathers like Irenaeus had a clear understanding of which texts derived from the Apostles. That was their theological litmus test.

As Christians loving Christ they could hear the voice of the Good Shepherd clearly and consistently in the Gospel of John but only echoes in the Gospel attributed to Thomas.

The Law, Prophets and Writings did not have a table of contents but souls who knew the love and Holiness of God knew the words to be of Divine origin.

 

[Greg J.]

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

My point is: not so much for me. As a result, man-made ideas trigger my notice.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

I'm sure many of the 2nd to 5th century church theologians would agree with you. They had to have councils and write rebuttals (aka like Against Heresies) because there were heretics under every rock peddling forgeries as "Holy Scriptures." So we have a lot to thank those early theologians for in identifying the forgeries and spurious works and uplift the Holy Writ as received from the Apostles.

Yet I will not disagree with your point. Here's why:

First century souls (in the time of Christ) recognized a holy man in the desert and an itinerant Preacher as being of God even though the Jewish magisterium rejected them. (Mk. 11:27-33) And thus Christianity began in dissent from those, who like Rome, presumed of themselves more than what was written, (cf. 1Cor. 4:6), including assured veracity, and thus they were reproved from Scripture by Christ and His apostles for teaching as doctrines mere traditions of the elders, (Mk. 7:2-16) while the Lord established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power, as did the apostles and early church. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

True men of God, writings of God, and thus the books of the Bible, became established as being of God in the light of their Heavenly qualities, virtues and the manner of Divine supernatural attestation often afforded them,. While the powers that be were to affirm such as being of God, yet they were so even if the magisterium failed to do so. And thus the church began.

 

[redleghunter]

Now I do believe that Calvinist and many major Protestant Church know Christian history but not your average evangelical

Did you know John Stott was evangelical? Evangelical is not a denomination. It spans many from Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, Bible church, Methodist and Pentecostals.

So waving a magic wand does not work unless you would consider JI Packer, John Stott, RC Sproul, DA Carson, CS Lewis, John Piper, Phillip Schaff and many others as ignorant of church history.

 

[Jon Osterman]

I see a lot of "creative interpretation" of scriptures on this forum. Well meaning Christians twist the scriptures to interpret them as they find convenient. I don't think this is deliberate, but is a consequence of societal conditioning. The liberal agenda is pushed onto us so much that even Christians become brainwashed into thinking the liberal position is "right" and "moral", and since they (correctly) believe that God is always right and moral, force themselves to (wrongly) interpret His scriptures in a way that is compatible with their pre-formed beliefs.

 

[Anto9us]

I have actually seen very old King James Bibles that have at the title page of Hebrews "The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews".

I don't think Paul wrote Hebrews; the author mentions near the end that "Timothy has been released from prison". At no time of Paul's life do we ever see anything of Timothy being in prison, and Paul was quite close to Timothy.

At one time, I hoped Priscilla might be the author - til some other poster pointed out a masculine first person pronoun used - and that was that; I had hoped there might have been one female author in New Testament.

Titus was more contemporary with Timothy, maybe they were close in age, Titus is a possible author, but we really don't know for sure who wrote Hebrews.

As far as reading Early Church Fathers, the Orthodox Study Bible's commentary notes are chockfull of quotes by ECF. My son has been Greek Orthodox for two years, and I got one of their Bibles. It's Old Testament is based on Septuagint, it's NT is NKJV.

A two-volume church history by Lutheran J. L. Neve was quite helpful to me; even though it was done circa WW2.

I saw Schaff's 8-volume history of the church in a Mardel's store, but didn't have a hunnerd bucks to spare.

We can never get too much history.

 

[AlexDTX]

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?

Yes.

However, too often the opinions of the Fathers is regarded by some as more accurate simply because of their proximity in time. This is a carnal assumption that has no logical strength. The first believers were Jewish, but in general they did not understand the grace of God that the Lord revealed to Paul. The early gentile believers still had pagan mindsets that needed renewing. Ideas about eccelessia have always been influenced by people wanting preeminence. This logical fallacy applies to early copies of manuscripts. An error is not time related. Copyist errors could be made in the first generation of copies.

But it is negligent on current believers to not know who and what saints of past believed and practiced. Tradition is belittled by some as irrelevant to modern circumstances. This is foolish, in my opinion, if for no other reason than modern believers are depriving themselves of the knowledge of our rich heritage.

It is also a broken bridge that should be mended between current believers around the world who do hold fast to traditions and those who think contemporary Christianity does not need to know the past. There are many rich and profound hymns that many contemporary Christians know nothing about that speak to the heart and contain deep theology.

John said,
1Jn_4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

In other words, if we love God we also love the brethren. If we say we love the brethren, is it love to ignore the saints that came before us and are still alive with Christ in heaven? Should we not care about their contributions to the body of Christ, too?

 

[redleghunter]

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.

First I doubt Mormonism and Islam can be categorized as restoration movements. They are based according to them on new revelation.

Secondly, how did souls in the first century determine a man living in the wilderness crying out to repent and be baptized and an itinerant preacher who rebuked the current magisterium, were of God and not man?

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Good to "see" you Mark.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Great tome on the history of the Church. Written by Philip Scaff in the late 19th century.

Free from the Christian classics site.

https://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/About.htm

 

[PaulCyp1]

Protestants have virtually no knowledge of early Christianity since such history pertained only to the one Church Jesus Christ founded, the Catholic Church. Unauthorized manmade denominational churches didn't appear until 1,000 or more years later.

 

[Albion]

Protestants have virtually no knowledge of early Christianity since such history pertained only to the one Church Jesus Christ founded, the Catholic Church. Unauthorized manmade denominational churches didn't appear until 1,000 or more years later.

Well, this is clearly untrue; but it does depend upon which Protestant body we are speaking of.

 

[concretecamper]

The only council which is considered by the Latin church as ecumenical which addressed the canon was Trent.

Florence 1431

It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament -- that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel -- since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.

 

[concretecamper]

Protestants have virtually no knowledge of early Christianity since such history pertained only to the one Church Jesus Christ founded, the Catholic Church. Unauthorized manmade denominational churches didn't appear until 1,000 or more years later.

You are being kind by saying only 1,000 years when in reality it is more like 1,500.