• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Do Modern Christians undervalue Christian History?

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by David Cabrera, Sep 1, 2018.

  1. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +6,534
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    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
     
  2. Athanasius377

    Athanasius377 Is a little right of Atilla the Hun Supporter

    578
    +674
    United States
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Constitution
    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.
     
  3. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +3,643
    Presbyterian
    Single
    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: Sep 2, 2018
  4. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +9,308
    Christian
    Married
    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).
     
  5. redleghunter

    redleghunter Abide Boldy my friend Supporter

    +24,154
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    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: Sep 2, 2018
  6. salt-n-light

    salt-n-light Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,233
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Celibate
    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.
     
  7. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +3,643
    Presbyterian
    Single
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  8. redleghunter

    redleghunter Abide Boldy my friend Supporter

    +24,154
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    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
     
  9. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +9,308
    Christian
    Married
    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."
     
  10. SolomonVII

    SolomonVII Well-Known Member

    +4,703
    Canada
    Catholic
    Married
    CA-Greens
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  11. THE W

    THE W BORN APRIL 29TH 2012

    +2,083
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    people undervalue history in general..
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  12. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +611
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    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
     
  13. David Cabrera

    David Cabrera Well-Known Member

    +1,536
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican
    I mean, if the Council if Trent was a mistake then Christianity would be in big trouble.
     
  14. Ignatius the Kiwi

    Ignatius the Kiwi Newbie

    +715
    Eastern Orthodox
    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.
     
  15. MarkRohfrietsch

    MarkRohfrietsch Unapologetic Apologist Supporter

    +3,569
    Lutheran
    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 Informative x 1
    • List
  16. David Cabrera

    David Cabrera Well-Known Member

    +1,536
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican
    I was talking about History from the beginning until today.
     
  17. The Times

    The Times Well-Known Member

    +794
    Eastern Orthodox
    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: Sep 3, 2018
  18. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +611
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    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.
     
  19. redleghunter

    redleghunter Abide Boldy my friend Supporter

    +24,154
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Why?
     
  20. redleghunter

    redleghunter Abide Boldy my friend Supporter

    +24,154
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    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
     
Loading...