Explaining Theological Divergence

[Mark Sparks]

Hello everyone, I will attempt to be concise.

I'm working on generating a taxonomy of reasons that the early Christian writers could have gone askew and assessing the viability of the different theses that are posed. Often time, there has been a quick dismissal of their veracity, however, I am having a difficult time being so dismissive. I am hoping that a forum like this will help.

For example, I'm currently researching a doctrine of repentance in the Shepherd of Hermas. This book had widespread acceptance and even authority given to it in the early churches. I find this tremendous considering how divergent the doctrine of repentance is from our contemporary understanding of the nature of repentance. If we take the apostolic fathers seriously, especially the testimony that they were trained directly by apostles, how do we explain this theological divergence not only with the author of the the Shepherd of Hermas but also the divergence of the larger surrounding community that held the work in such high regard? If the author was trained by an apostle, you can almost assume that repentance was a topic that was taught extensively. How could the entire validating Christian community have taken such a big step away from what we would today consider orthodox?

What are your thoughts? How do we explain our theological divergence with the apostolic fathers on not only this, but many other core issues?

 

[dqhall]

Hello everyone, I will attempt to be concise.

I'm working on generating a taxonomy of reasons that the early Christian writers could have gone askew and assessing the viability of the different theses that are posed. Often time, there has been a quick dismissal of their veracity, however, I am having a difficult time being so dismissive. I am hoping that a forum like this will help.

For example, I'm currently researching a doctrine of repentance in the Shepherd of Hermas. This book had widespread acceptance and even authority given to it in the early churches. I find this tremendous considering how divergent the doctrine of repentance is from our contemporary understanding of the nature of repentance. If we take the apostolic fathers seriously, especially the testimony that they were trained directly by apostles, how do we explain this theological divergence not only with the author of the the Shepherd of Hermas but also the divergence of the larger surrounding community that held the work in such high regard? If the author was trained by an apostle, you can almost assume that repentance was a topic that was taught extensively. How could the entire validating Christian community have taken such a big step away from what we would today consider orthodox?

What are your thoughts? How do we explain our theological divergence with the apostolic fathers on not only this, but many other core issues?

There were numerous works not included in the canon, some due to lack of credibility such as the Gnostic Gospels, even though the Gospel of Thomas may contain a few good verses. I liked Tatian’s Diatessaron, but many will not have time to read, much less memorize it. I have forgotten this text that I read decades ago. Parchment was expensive and all the texts were copied by hand. People had to go to church to hear Bible scriptures. Most households could not afford a Bible before the printing press was invented. Now there is mass electronic storage of texts, but not much interest or time for lesser known works.

 

[HTacianas]

Hello everyone, I will attempt to be concise.

I'm working on generating a taxonomy of reasons that the early Christian writers could have gone askew and assessing the viability of the different theses that are posed. Often time, there has been a quick dismissal of their veracity, however, I am having a difficult time being so dismissive. I am hoping that a forum like this will help.

For example, I'm currently researching a doctrine of repentance in the Shepherd of Hermas. This book had widespread acceptance and even authority given to it in the early churches. I find this tremendous considering how divergent the doctrine of repentance is from our contemporary understanding of the nature of repentance. If we take the apostolic fathers seriously, especially the testimony that they were trained directly by apostles, how do we explain this theological divergence not only with the author of the the Shepherd of Hermas but also the divergence of the larger surrounding community that held the work in such high regard? If the author was trained by an apostle, you can almost assume that repentance was a topic that was taught extensively. How could the entire validating Christian community have taken such a big step away from what we would today consider orthodox?

What are your thoughts? How do we explain our theological divergence with the apostolic fathers on not only this, but many other core issues?

The view of Hermas on repentance is what was taught by the apostles, and is what is contained in the new testament. The "divergence" began circa 200 or so with Calixtus I's decision that the Church could absolve a person of mortal sin committed after baptism. Fast forward to the last Roman persecution and even the sin of denying Christ under persecution could be absolved.

 

[Mark Sparks]

The view of Hermas on repentance is what was taught by the apostles, and is what is contained in the new testament. The "divergence" began circa 200 or so with Calixtus I's decision that the Church could absolve a person of mortal sin committed after baptism. Fast forward to the last Roman persecution and even the sin of denying Christ under persecution could be absolved.

That's interesting that you say that it is contained in the New Testament. Where do you find the concepts that repentance is limited in its quantity (Vis. II, ii) and that it has a deadline (Vis. III, v)? I also don't have the reference here, but you certainly don't get the feel from Shepherd of Hermas or other apostolic fathers that I have read that repentance is related to future sins. It seems to me that repentance is required for the remission of future sins though the protestant doctrine of repentance does not carry this same teaching.

 

[HTacianas]

That's interesting that you say that it is contained in the New Testament. Where do you find the concepts that repentance is limited in its quantity (Vis. II, ii) and that it has a deadline (Vis. III, v)? I also don't have the reference here, but you certainly don't get the feel from Shepherd of Hermas or other apostolic fathers that I have read that repentance is related to future sins. It seems to me that repentance is required for the remission of future sins though the protestant doctrine of repentance does not carry this same teaching.

The "deadline" for repentance found in the book is the day of baptism. All previous sins are forgiven. "Gentiles" who have not been baptized have not reached that day. There was a custom among adult converts early on to forego baptism as long as possible to avoid sinning afterwards. "Deathbed conversion" was seen as the ideal.

Most modern protestant denominations are so far removed from the early Church that they've become something else altogether.

 

[Mark Sparks]

The "deadline" for repentance found in the book is the day of baptism. All previous sins are forgiven. "Gentiles" who have not been baptized have not reached that day. There was a custom among adult converts early on to forego baptism as long as possible to avoid sinning afterwards. "Deathbed conversion" was seen as the ideal.

Most modern protestant denominations are so far removed from the early Church that they've become something else altogether.

Thanks for your feedback. So if I could succinctly put an answer to my question based on your responses, you would say that the theological divergence is simply because the protestant church has gotten it wrong. Am I representing you correctly?

 

[HTacianas]

Thanks for your feedback. So if I could succinctly put an answer to my question based on your responses, you would say that the theological divergence is simply because the protestant church has gotten it wrong. Am I representing you correctly?

That's about it, yes.

 

[TheWhat?]

What are your thoughts? How do we explain our theological divergence with the apostolic fathers on not only this, but many other core issues?

Deathbed conversions, withholding forgiveness, paedobaptism leading to damnation of children are absurdities that I believe the church rightly discerned, eventually, and saw to contradict additional NT teachings. We see Paul warning of the dangers of partaking of the eucharist in an unworthy manner, but nothing to the extent of what is listed here.

Savage wolves will come, not sparing the flock. Theological divergence was something experienced, first hand, by Jesus and the Apostles at the hand of the religious community that rejected them. I personally believe it was anticipated, and, to some extent, engineered by their teaching, but not to promote it, rather, to deal with it in a manner not explicitly disclosed.