Were people in biblical times as uncertain about "Christian Doctrine"?

[foodiepeep]

Perhaps it's just me, but IMHO, it seems as though the people of Christ's era (short of the pharisees) were much less inquiring about biblical principle than we as modern-day believers now are. Today, there are literally millions of studies, forums, books, and thesis on such topics and interpretations, and yet we can never truly come to a consensus about what any of it truly means.

Why is it that our "biblical ancestors" appeared to bear more of an unquestioning "face-value" sort of mentality that needed far less explanation than we do in present times? It feels like as a society, we've never been more unsteady in our ability to understand scriptural concepts than we are today. ...What's more, all these endless debates and arguments honestly seem to be just the opposite of what the Lord intends for us as humans, in that our inability to reach mutual understanding of the material encompassed within the bible (itself) actually further separates us from Him in the end.

 

[BrendanMark]

Paul was already correcting the errant ways of Corinthians and others during the Apostolic era. Cults, including pseudo-Christian cults, abounded in that era. The arguments against heresy were in full flight by the time Irenaeus of Lyons penned Adversus Heresies, long before the Arian, Apollinaran and Nestorian heresies.

Apart from the Pharisees and Sadducees, there were also Zealots, Essenes and many others. Thus it has always been, it seems.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

You think the early church didn't spend days and days and years hammering out doctrine? It's no different now then it was back then, except that we really haven't had a good heresy in a long time. The closest one we have is Rob Bell, and that's not even a real big deal. Arius was a big deal. Nothing now even comes close to that. When St. Nick socks you, that's when you know it's a big deal. But that's a good thing. To quote The Godfather, "You need a war every now and then, takes care of the bad blood."

Seriously, look back through the early church. All it was was figuring out doctrine, fighting heresies or "interpretations".

 

[Gnarwhal]

? It's no different now then it was back then, except that we really haven't had a good heresy in a long time. The closest one we have is Rob Bell,

Please explain what you mean.

 

[fwiwwl]

Perhaps it's just me, but IMHO, it seems as though the people of Christ's era (short of the pharisees) were much less inquiring about biblical principle than we as modern-day believers now are. Today, there are literally millions of studies, forums, books, and thesis on such topics and interpretations, and yet we can never truly come to a consensus about what any of it truly means.

Why is it that our "biblical ancestors" appeared to bear more of an unquestioning "face-value" sort of mentality that needed far less explanation than we do in present times? It feels like as a society, we've never been more unsteady in our ability to understand scriptural concepts than we are today. ...What's more, all these endless debates and arguments honestly seem to be just the opposite of what the Lord intends for us as humans, in that our inability to reach mutual understanding of the material encompassed within the bible (itself) actually further separates us from Him in the end.

Please believe me that I have no intention of being argumentative. Bible times didnt start to well into the third century. Biblecal time started with the Romans under a ruler named Constantine. Paul and the rest of our ancestral brothers did not carry a book. Their letters became the Book (along with the Old Testament Books) They relied on God to guide them and give them Words to share. We have "endless debates" because of our lack of understanding as to what the original authors meant. I believe it was their uttered Words that were powerful not the letters they wrote

Just fwiw............W.L

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Perhaps it's just me, but IMHO, it seems as though the people of Christ's era (short of the pharisees) were much less inquiring about biblical principle than we as modern-day believers now are.

This is because back in those days the apostles and other Christians were tied into the historical Church. Many today have willfully (and unwillfully) severed this tie.

 

[mark46]

Do you really believe that more are in heresy now than in the pre-Nicene era of the Church?

I certainly don't think so. There are indeed many doctrinal differences, and many, many areas of differences in theological opinion. But what of heresies compared to the early heresies?

I am Anglican. I wouldn't think of considering Christians of other ecclesial communities to be heretics unless they did not accept the dogma of the Church as enunciated in the early creeds. For me, heresy is a very serious word, much like dogma. We need to be very careful when we use either word.

Do I think that there those of other churches that are in serious doctrinal error? You bet I do; there are many in leadership in my own church. But not heresy.

This is because back in those days the apostles and other Christians were tied into the historical Church. Many today have willfully (and unwillfully) severed this tie.

 

[Gnarwhal]

For me, heresy is a very serious word, much like dogma. We need to be very careful when we use either word.

Do I think that there those of other churches that are in serious doctrinal error? You bet I do; there are many in leadership in my own church. But not heresy.

You said it, that word is abused in today's church. Especially in ultra-conservative circles.

 

[wayseer]

Perhaps it's just me, but IMHO, it seems as though the people of Christ's era (short of the pharisees) were much less inquiring about biblical principle than we as modern-day believers now are. Today, there are literally millions of studies, forums, books, and thesis on such topics and interpretations, and yet we can never truly come to a consensus about what any of it truly means.

It was the other way round. Talking about God or gods was no big deal - it was THE topic of the day - which is why Christianity was so successful in its formative years.

The Emperor was known as the 'Son of God'. The Emperor was Lord and he was Peace. Apart from the Jews, everyone had to worship him. Paul constructed his own theology along similar lines and so you have a 'competing' Lord who was Son of God and set the 'captive free' No wonder Christianity caught on - it was the best advertising campaign as one can get. 'Pssst, did you hear about the real Son of God, Jesus'? Wow - the ad men would kill for an opportunity like that.

So Christianity was well received - more so because it required no complicated laws to follow - essentially one just had to love one's neighbour and accept Jesus as Lord - too easy.

Why is it that our "biblical ancestors" appeared to bear more of an unquestioning "face-value" sort of mentality that needed far less explanation than we do in present times? It feels like as a society, we've never been more unsteady in our ability to understand scriptural concepts than we are today. ...What's more, all these endless debates and arguments honestly seem to be just the opposite of what the Lord intends for us as humans, in that our inability to reach mutual understanding of the material encompassed within the bible (itself) actually further separates us from Him in the end.

Nope - they were just as questioning as we are - no change there.

The biggest and most influential debate was whether one should be a Jew or not. Eventually the early proto-Christians got tired of trying to conform to all the rules and regulations that they just went off by themselves. But there were as many Christologies about in the 1st century as there are in the 21st century.

 

[ARBITER01]

Perhaps it's just me, but IMHO, it seems as though the people of Christ's era (short of the pharisees) were much less inquiring about biblical principle than we as modern-day believers now are. Today, there are literally millions of studies, forums, books, and thesis on such topics and interpretations, and yet we can never truly come to a consensus about what any of it truly means.

Why is it that our "biblical ancestors" appeared to bear more of an unquestioning "face-value" sort of mentality that needed far less explanation than we do in present times? It feels like as a society, we've never been more unsteady in our ability to understand scriptural concepts than we are today. ...What's more, all these endless debates and arguments honestly seem to be just the opposite of what the Lord intends for us as humans, in that our inability to reach mutual understanding of the material encompassed within the bible (itself) actually further separates us from Him in the end.

Some of the problem stems from who a Christian accepts as their authority on truth.

The Christian who learns to be guided by The Holy Spirit within, as well as learns how revelation from Him works to enlighten him/her in the scriptures, will eventually have a greater understanding of scripture truth and doctrine than other Christians who do not rely upon Him.

It's a big slippery slop to refuse The Holy Spirit's teachings and stake your claim on mens teachings instead, yet it happens with frequency anymore.

 

[cyberlizard]

Paul was already correcting the errant ways of Corinthians and others during the Apostolic era. Cults, including pseudo-Christian cults, abounded in that era. The arguments against heresy were in full flight by the time Irenaeus of Lyons penned Adversus Heresies, long before the Arian, Apollinaran and Nestorian heresies.

Apart from the Pharisees and Sadducees, there were also Zealots, Essenes and many others. Thus it has always been, it seems.

i can relate to this post and also to the initial post as well, but it should be remembered that the congregations Paul was founding had lots of Gentile members who had never been brought up with the teachings of Moses and the Sages. In this regard, they needed a lot more straightening out than their Jewish contemporaries, though they needed a different sort of straightening. The former required moral and torah based straightening, the latter ethnic based straightening.

Truthfully though, despite all the odd beliefs of the early church, I would rather it be lack that now than it is as it is. Now doctrinally it is essentially monolithic and unchanging, then it was dynamic and adaptive. In terms of organisms, the latter is generally seen to be alive whereas the former gives an illusion of it.


Steve

p.s. there is a vast distinction between heresy and faulty theology, besides heresy is always determined by consensus and the majority are not always right in their assertions.

 

[Kaitlin08]

At the time of the apostles, it was possible to ask the important figures, among them the eyewitnesses to Jesus, what had happened. As time went by, it became difficult to trace the information back to people who were in a position to know, and those people themselves had passed on, of course. For this reason it was necessary to study more thoroughly than previous generations had; but until recent centuries, with advances in so many different areas of thought, the means to do the study with pinpoint precision weren't in place.

 

[foodiepeep]

At the time of the apostles, it was possible to ask the important figures, among them the eyewitnesses to Jesus, what had happened. As time went by, it became difficult to trace the information back to people who were in a position to know, and those people themselves had passed on, of course. For this reason it was necessary to study more thoroughly than previous generations had; but until recent centuries, with advances in so many different areas of thought, the means to do the study with pinpoint precision weren't in place.

Indeed, and as with most things, the message becomes a bit more skewed and diluted as it's passed along, often hindering the (original) context.