Church history and Evangelical Protestantism

[Eric B]

Any book on Christian history (not relecting RCC/EOC bias).
Kelley Early Christian Doctrines is one.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

You mean about reading the book? OK, if I can ever find that book. But it still stands that the Christians were guests, so you can't assume that the apostles authorized, copied and brought the ritual over, though later leaders may have. And the rituals and their meanings were different from Christian practice.

No, not about the book, though it's a cool book.

You wrote

And again, did the synagogues have Communion? They may have had the seder on Passover, but that is still not a weekly "mass" based on Christian imagery.

after I had written

Early Christians met in the synagogues on the Sabbath then gathered for an agape that evening (the first of the week to them, Saturday night to us). After they were ejected from the synagogues they combined both services Sunday mornings, the former synagogue service becoming the Liturgy of the Word or synaxis as NT readings were added, and the agape becoming the Eucharist.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Any book on Christian history (not relecting RCC/EOC bias).
Kelley Early Christian Doctrines is one.

Interesting choice, considering Kelley in Early Christian Doctrines demonstrates that the earliest Christians believed in "real presence" of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, not some type of Zwinglian memorialism.

 

[Pastor Larry]

In other words, forget theology for this thread, what does history say about basic Christian worship and the structure of the Church and/or churches as the case may be?

Why would you want to leave theology out of it? Churches and church worship is first and always a theological matter.

Anything can be shown from the church fathers because there was someone who believed everything. Second, authority does not exist in the church fathers but in the Scripture.

So to try to answer a theological question while requesting that theology be left out of the answer is somewhat confusing.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Interesting choice, considering Kelley in Early Christian Doctrines demonstrates that the earliest Christians believed in "real presence" of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, not some type of Zwinglian memorialism.

The apostle Paul records for us that Christians in the first 30 years of the church believed in memorialism. Since Paul's record is inspired, that will be better than Kelley.

It may well be true that later Christians, in teh second century and after, believed in real presence, it is manifestly not true that the earliest Christians did.

 

[Matt Black]

And virtually anything can be shown from Scripture since every individual has his or her own individual interpretation; for instance you assert that Paul is memorialist, many other Christians assert otherwise.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

And virtually anything can be shown from Scripture since every individual has his or her own individual interpretation; for instance you assert that Paul is memorialist, many other Christians assert otherwise.

Exactly, Matt. And the evidence shows, Larry, that John and Paul were among those earliest Christians who overwhelmingly believed in the "Real Presence". After all, Jesus Himself taught it. :thumbs:

 

[Allan]

Uh, Hello...Scripture interprets scripture. Ya the whole - line upon line, precept upon precept - thing.

We are not to look at scripture and say "what does this mean to me'?
We are to say "What does this scripture say in context and in relation to scripture or counsil of God as a whole".

We have so many different 'interpretations' because 'some' people think scripture is how THEY see it or what THEY think it means, as if they are God. God wrote it and what He states is never a contradiction within the whole of ALL scripture from the first to the last. Granted there are some 'gray type' or 'hard' areas and variations will come but only to a point and only within the relm and limits of already revealed truth.

Edited in>>>

Anything can be shown from the church fathers because there was someone who believed everything. Second, authority does not exist in the church fathers but in the Scripture.

A-MEN and Glory to that Pastor Larry. And that (the bible and the theology therein) is where we get our understanding. Man is falible but God and His Word will never fail OR faulter like men in our understanding can.

 

[Matt Black]

Yes, and the people who come up with the plethora of contradictory interpretations all chant your mantra: "Scripture interprets Scripture"; where does that leave us?

 

[Eric B]

Interesting choice, considering Kelley in Early Christian Doctrines demonstrates that the earliest Christians believed in "real presence" of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, not some type of Zwinglian memorialism.

And this book was discussed before, perhaps with Orthodox, and I showed with a quote that the doctrine was developed in the post-apostolic period, and not pased down When I get home tonight, I'll get the quote again.

And the evidence does not show John and Paul believing that, but was rather developed, and then projected back to them.

Taug, I saw what you said, but still, the point was that this was after most of the apostles, and they did not direct the Church to bring over synagogue worship and mix it. It was later Christians' adaptation to the situation. (One thing that John did keep, which we know from Polycarp, is quartodecimanism, but the apostolic consensus on that was the princple of Rom.14./Col.2.)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

And this book was discussed before, perhaps with Orthodox, and I showed with a quote that the doctrine was developed in the post-apostolic period, and not pased down When I get home tonight, I'll get the quote again.

And the evidence does not show John and Paul believing that, but was rather developed, and then projected back to them.

There is no question that doctrine "developed". The question is whether a particular development, though clarifying terminology, is organically consistent across time and space and with the initial apostolic teaching, or whether that development deviates essentially from what was basically believed from the beginning. For instance, although terminology employed in the great trinitarian and christological formulations of the 4th and 5th centuries took a while to get hashed out and agreed upon, these formulations reflected (rather than forcibly projected upon) the content of statements in the scriptures and the earliest church fathers expressing belief in a (somehow) triune God and in a subject (Jesus) who was both human and divine. There was a consistency across time and space in the response to heretical deviations (modalism, gnosticism, adoptionism etc) that suggested the basic boundaries of orthodox thought even if the terminology was not yet universally agreed upon within those same boundaries. One can thus with confidence argue on good historical grounds that these formulations were legitimate developments.

On the subject of the Eucharist, you assert that the early statements supporting the "real presence" were projected back into the biblical texts. You might possibly have a point if you could produce any evidence that anyone anywhere believed in a mere memorialism during that time period. The fact is one cannot find a statement supporting a proto-Zwinglian view of the sacraments for roughly the first millenia of the church. (The only ones who approximated that view were the gnostics.) On the other hand, belief in the real presence was consistent across time and space. What's ironic is that only by projecting a 16th century (*or possibly a first century gnostic) view back into the NT can one accuse the orthodox catholic church of deviating from the apostolic doctrine. One making such a leap is led to astonishing conclusion that the consensus in the church from the beginning--from Gaul to Rome to Alexandria to Asia to Persia--was a uniform deviation, without any hint of disagreement or argument (except from the gnostics) from other orthodox believers, from the apostolic teaching. In other words, everyone everywhere in the same way and at the same time within the church adopted a teaching contrary to the apostles because they were projecting their own "spin" (again, in the same way) back onto the Scriptures with no trace left anywhere of the allegedly correct Zwinglian interpretation (except among gnostic heretics) of the same Scriptures. (WOW!). I guess you could hold to such a view, but you would be on no firmer ground historically than the Mormons who insist that the true apostolic teaching was completely distorted shortly after they died without leaving a historical trace of the true teaching of Christ.

Of course, the historically sensible alternative would be to admit that the plain sense of Scriptures and the consensus of the early church fathers both taught the "real presence" of the body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist (ie that the broken bread and the blessed cup were indeed a real participation in the real body and blood of Christ--1 Cor 10:16); that any subtle differences in terminology were born of clarification in different literary contexts thus being consistent with legitimate development (akin to the situation with the latter trinitarian and christological formulations) and that "mere memorialism" is the late deviation from the apostolic norm and is thus the illegitimate development.

 

[Eric B]

Sorry, but your logic still attempts to jump the gaps with this overrated "consensus" largely on references scattered across a certain amount of space and time. But the Church was spreading, so all that shows was that the doctrine was already taught in an area that the Church spread from at that time. And this spread begins with Ignatius, to get it close to the apostles and make the final jump to the NT, yet most of the other references, especially from when it was spread around more, are from centuries later, and this is all balled up into "the earliest Church" and therefore NT Christianity.

Even with the Trinity, what you're saying amounts to having the apostles going around proclaiming "three persons, one substance", but never writing it exactly like that. And there are many who seem to believe that. Yet some will admit that that expression of it did develop, in reaction to false teachings. It was not an "oral tradition" handed down wholesale from the apostles. The truth of God as Father, Son and Spirit was there all along in writing, but it is a particular statement based on it that would arise against false statements. Yet, as a human creed, it is not a perfect expression, and has caused problem (people misunderstanding the terms, thinking it is three gods). I believe the second and third century expressions were better, but the Alexandrian understanding of it (which was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, especially the attempts to explain the concept) prevailed after the fourth century.

So likewise, the real presence doctrine may have been formulated to counter gnostics and others who didn't take the communion seriously. But that means it was NOT an "oral tradition" handed down from the apostles; just like the Athanasian/Nicene Trinity wasn't. And it is not a perfect expression of the truth. Again, the New Testament traches that WE, the Church is the Body, in COMMUNION as a body when eating and worshipping together, with Christ present in us through the spirit. That is what would be understood through the metaphors; especially, once again, when Christ initiated the ceremony when He was still right there in His actual body. I would say hints like that surpass anyone else's interpretation of it. Later people could easily msunderstand this, just as the Jews did. It is possible to overclarify things, and this is actually how many of the heresies they were counterng started. Modalism, Arianism and psilanthropisn (pure unitarianism) tried to clarify God's oneness. Mormonism tries to clarify His threeness. Nestorianism tried to clarify the distinction between Christ's nature. And gnosticism tried to clarify the distinction between physical and spiritual. So the "clarifications" themselves are not the actual truth we are looking for, though some of them may be helpful as guides.
And likewise, "Zwinglianism" was also an attempt to clarify and counter a concept that had crossed into error. It too had its problems, such as the possibility that emphasizng it as just a "memorial" mght lead back into people not taking ot seriously, or maybe even not thinking it necessary at all.
There was no "Zwinglian" concept back then because there was no need for it. It was the opposite problem from what Zwingli attacked that was at hand (gnostcism), so the Church pushed the opposite way towards exalting the elemnts to counter it.

 

[Matt Black]

Sorry, are you seriously suggesting that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan doctrine of the Trinity in an 'Alexandrian error'?

 

[Allan]

Yes, and the people who come up with the plethora of contradictory interpretations all chant your mantra: "Scripture interprets Scripture"; where does that leave us?

That maybe Matt, however in my dealings with pastors and laymen I have yet to find many who will throw out [supposed] scriptural support for their view but when challenged to look at it in context and review simple (you usually don't have to go to deep) Greek or Hebrew usage of certain words that their 'veiw' crumbles by their own words.
I find most love to toss scripture at you as if to say "look here is another one that vouch safes my view" but simply and lovingly ask them to use 20/20 vision. That being - Read the first 20 verse up to it AND 20 verses after it to gain context, meaning, and intent. I know many use the say "scripture interprets scripture" so hold them to it. Many fail with this simple form of exegesis of scripture though it does not make the m stupid or unwise in the scripture - it just means they did not study on that issue as they should or could have.

Guess what even I can be wrong but what is that standard by which be can be sure? It is scripture itself for it will NEVER contradict itself. If there is one verse of contradiction it is not in the Bible but in a flawed understanding of what we may hold as Truth. The question then becomes will we change and obey or keep and heap to ourselves teachers having itching ears.

 

[Pastor Larry]

And virtually anything can be shown from Scripture since every individual has his or her own individual interpretation; for instance you assert that Paul is memorialist, many other Christians assert otherwise.

Yes, but the answer is found in the words Paul used. Everyone agrees that Paul said "Do this in remembrance of me." We are the ones who believe it.

And the evidence shows, Larry, that John and Paul were among those earliest Christians who overwhelmingly believed in the "Real Presence".

Where is this evidence? It isn't in the Bible.

After all, Jesus Himself taught it.

Do you have something not found in Scripture? Because Jesus never taught this in Scripture.

 

[Matt Black]

Yes, but the answer is found in the words Paul used. Everyone agrees that Paul said "Do this in remembrance of me." We are the ones who believe it.

And he also said that we participate in the Body and Blood of Christ

Where is this evidence? It isn't in the Bible.

Yes it is - see above for Paul and see eg: John 6:32-59 for John

Do you have something not found in Scripture? Because Jesus never taught this in Scripture.

Umm...so I guess that "This is My body, this is My Blood" has been excised from your version of the Bible?

 

[Pastor Larry]

And he also said that we participate in the Body and Blood of Christ

Yes we do. That is hardly an argument for real presence. The only way to get real presence in those words is to presuppose it. And even then it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Yes it is - see above for Paul

As you can see from the passage, Paul said nothing about real presence there.

and see eg: John 6:32-59 for John

Those were the words of Christ in that passage, and the manifestly do not teach real presence. They are clearly metaphorical as we can see by the people's response. That has nothing to do with communion in anyway.

Umm...so I guess that "This is My body, this is My Blood" has been excised from your version of the Bible?

Nope, it's right there. Did you read the passage? It says he took bread and wine. Yes, Christ called it bread and wine. So that is what it is. There is nothing in that passage about real presence.

Your arguments have been tried for centuries Matt. They have always come up short. They do not teach real presence in anyway. And the plain reading of the text makes that clear. The only way to get real presence is to presuppose it, and then adjust the Scriptures to fit it. I reject that manner of interpreting Scripture in favor of the one used by Paul and the other authors of Scripture.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Eric,
I think we might be talking past each other a little here. You bring up some valid points about development of doctrine in regards to the terminology with which I agree (and I thought I expressed as much in my previous post but perhaps was not clear enough). Hopefully I'll get to fully respond to your post sometime this weekend (if not, it won't be til the Thanksgiving weekend), but for now, a few of points:

1. Human formulations regarding the Trinity/Incarnation did take time to develop and did so in response to various heretical views about the nature of the Trinity/Incarnation.

2.When a response was made to a heretical view about God or Christ, often some overreacted in the other direction. However, between these opposite exaggerations and overreactions, there were recognizable boundaries of orthodoxy which materially reflected what was received in the apostolic tradition and indeed taught in the Scriptures. The consensus (guided by the Holy Spirit, I submit) worked to keep the church within these boundaries.

3. It took time for actual definitions of these boundaries (ie, the Nicene Creed, the Chalcedonian Definition) to be widely accepted in part because it took a while for adequate terminology to become available (and agreed upon) to more precisely make the subtle distinctions implied in the earlier baptismal confessions, creeds, and rules of faith of the tradition (in congruence with the scriptural teaching)--distinctions that would rule out heretical misinterpretations. [For ex--making the distinction between the more-or-less former synonyms, hypostasis and ousia]

4. While, of course, all human language falls short ultimately in positively describing God/Christ, the ecumenical creeds and definitions of the Church (guided by the Spirit) provide correct parameters for saying what God/Christ are not.

(I suppose the difference between you and me, is that I see in history the hand of the Holy Spirit keeping the conciliar church orthodox through it's doctrinal developments/clarifications--the same Holy Spirit who inspired Holy Scriptures and who led the church to define the limits of the canon)

I could apply these points in more detail, especially in regards to the boundaries of the real presence (as between an exaggerated carnal literalism on one hand and a merely metaphorical "real absense" on the other), but time for work....

 

[Matt Black]

Pastor Larry, your words are based on your interpretation of those Scriptures; they are not 'the plain meaning' for if such plain meaning existed then there would be no disagreement as to it (although you don't get much plainer than "This is My Body, this is My Blood").

Your argument has been tried for considerably fewer centuries than mine (approximately 5), by a minority of Christians in time and space, and is based on an incorrect Zwingliist interpretation of those and other Scriptures.

 

[Eric B]

Sorry, are you seriously suggesting that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan doctrine of the Trinity in an 'Alexandrian error'?

No, just that the particular language used for it in the councils was not perfect, and not passed down from the Apostles.

Eric,
I think we might be talking past each other a little here. You bring up some valid points about development of doctrine in regards to the terminology with which I agree (and I thought I expressed as much in my previous post but perhaps was not clear enough). Hopefully I'll get to fully respond to your post sometime this weekend (if not, it won't be til the Thanksgiving weekend), but for now, a few of points:

1. Human formulations regarding the Trinity/Incarnation did take time to develop and did so in response to various heretical views about the nature of the Trinity/Incarnation.

2.When a response was made to a heretical view about God or Christ, often some overreacted in the other direction. However, between these opposite exaggerations and overreactions, there were recognizable boundaries of orthodoxy which materially reflected what was received in the apostolic tradition and indeed taught in the Scriptures. The consensus (guided by the Holy Spirit, I submit) worked to keep the church within these boundaries.

3. It took time for actual definitions of these boundaries (ie, the Nicene Creed, the Chalcedonian Definition) to be widely accepted in part because it took a while for adequate terminology to become available (and agreed upon) to more precisely make the subtle distinctions implied in the earlier baptismal confessions, creeds, and rules of faith of the tradition (in congruence with the scriptural teaching)--distinctions that would rule out heretical misinterpretations. [For ex--making the distinction between the more-or-less former synonyms, hypostasis and ousia]

4. While, of course, all human language falls short ultimately in positively describing God/Christ, the ecumenical creeds and definitions of the Church (guided by the Spirit) provide correct parameters for saying what God/Christ are not.

(I suppose the difference between you and me, is that I see in history the hand of the Holy Spirit keeping the conciliar church orthodox through it's doctrinal developments/clarifications--the same Holy Spirit who inspired Holy Scriptures and who led the church to define the limits of the canon)

I go along with that to, but that apparently the Spirit did not inspire absolute perfection in rverything they said, was was done with the scriptures. The basic truth underlying their statements was maintained, and as you pointed out, it was more about what Christ was not.

I could apply these points in more detail, especially in regards to the boundaries of the real presence (as between an exaggerated carnal literalism on one hand and a merely metaphorical "real absense" on the other), but time for work....

Again, I believe that the middle position was that the presence was really in us, not in the elements.