New SBJT encourages study of the early church

Knowing church history, particularly as it relates to the early years of Christianity and the theological issues which faced leaders in that age is important for all believers, essayists in the summer edition of the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology argue. The latest SBJT examines the early church and encourages Christians to learn from important church fathers such as Athanasius, Augustine and Irenaeus.

Essayists include Southern Seminary professor Michael A.G. Haykin, author and pastor John Piper, Westminster Theological Seminary professor Carl Trueman, Western Seminary professor Todd L. Miles, and Scottish Baptist pastor Nick Needham.

Journal editor Stephen J. Wellum opens with a plea for Christians to take a closer look at their earliest leaders. He admonishes readers to consider the importance of the first centuries of the church and the leaders who worked to establish biblical orthodoxy.

“Today, one of our problems in the evangelical church, which no doubt reflects our larger culture, is that we do not know history, let alone church history and historical theology well,” Wellum writes.

“This is especially the case in regard to the era that we have now dubbed ‘the Patristic era.’ It is safe to say that for most evangelicals, including Baptists, we are more familiar with key people and theological ideas from the Reformation and post-Reformation era than we are of the people and ideas from the earliest years of the church.”

Wellum sets forth two reasons why a study of the church fathers is crucial for modern-day Christians: it helps to remind believers of the rampant pluralism that leaders of the early church faced, and it serves to remind believers that it was the church fathers who hammered out the orthodox expressions of the faith in crucial areas such as Christology and the Trinity.

Many of the ancient heresies which leaders of the nascent church contended with remain alive and well, Wellum points out, and are seen in sects such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.

“Knowing this era of church history will not only enable us to be alert to trends in our own day that basically re-invent ideas from the past, but it will also help us better to live and proclaim the gospel faithfully today, for God’s glory and our good.”

Haykin, who serves as professor of church history at Southern Seminary, reviews emerging church leader Brian McLaren’s new book “ Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices,” a work that seeks to recommend spiritual disciplines as practiced in the early church to modern believers. One major problem with the book, Haykin argues, is that it articulates a spirituality that lacks any meaningful connection to the work of Christ.

“In the whole of the book,” Haykin writes, “there appears to be only one explicit reference to the cross. This occurs in the context of the trendy declaration that ‘Jesus didn’t come to start a new religion,’ for he ‘wouldn’t have been killed simply for starting a new religion,’ since the Roman Imperium was religiously tolerant. Yet, throughout its history, healthy Christian piety has directed people desirous of knowing how to draw near to God to the cross.”

In the end, Haykin concludes that McClaren’s book falls prey to the very thing is seeks to remedy and fails in its overall mission.

“McLaren keeps referring to ‘the ancient practices’ in his book, but, at the end of it, I was no wiser as to what exact period he is thinking of. I suspect that he would like the reader to think of the ancient church, which is usually dated from 100 A.D. to 500 A.D…But the truth of the matter is that much of what he said regarding these ancient practices is no older than the late Middle Ages.

“McLaren emphasizes that he wished to provide his readers with something more than a ‘mushy, amorphous spirituality,’ but that, in the opinion of this reader, is exactly what he has served up for his readers.”

Piper examines the life and theology of Athanasius, Needham provides an overview of the life and thought of St. Augustine of Hippo, Miles analyzes the thought of Irenaeus of Lyons, and Trueman traces the connections between Patristic beliefs and the theology of the Reformation.

The Journal also includes numerous book reviews and a panel discussion of the significance of the early church. Panelists include Southern Seminary professors Chad O. Brand and Gregg Allison, along with noted theological historian Stephen Nichols and Criswell College professor Everett Berry.

Pagan beliefs were NOT mixed in any way with Christianity at the Council of Nicaea or any other council. That idea is a modernist, anti-Catholic idea invented to excuse the complete lack of historical or biblical origins for Protestantism.

The Roman Office of the Pontifex Maximus began in 712 BC
Later all Roman Emperors held the title Pontifex Maximus.
Emperor Constantine held the title from 306 to 337 AD
Constantine convened the Nicene Council in 325 AD and issued this edict:
ON THE KEEPING OF EASTER.
From the Letter of the Emperor to all those not present at the Council.
(Found in Eusebius, Vita Const., Lib. iii., 18-20.)

When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was
universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the
feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable,
than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of
immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same
manner? It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the
holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the
Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and
whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom,(1) we may
transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter,
which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the
present day[according to the day of the week]. We ought not,
therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour
has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and
more convenient course(the order of the days of the week); and
consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest
brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the
Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without
their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the
right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led
by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They
do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness
and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two
passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly
in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most
certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one
year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still
be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such
wicked people[the Jews]. Besides, consider well, that in such an
important matter, and on a subject of such great solemnity, there ought
not to be any division. Our Saviour has left us only one festal day of
our redemption, that is to say, of his holy passion, and he desired[to
establish] only one Catholic Church. Think, then, how unseemly it is,
that on the same day some should be fasting whilst others are seated
at a banquet; and that after Easter, some should be rejoicing at feasts,
whilst others are still observing a strict fast. For this reason, a Divine
Providence wills that this custom should be rectified and regulated in a
uniform way; and everyone, I hope, will agree upon this point. As, on
the one hand, it is our duty not to have anything in common with the
murderers of our Lord; and as, on the other, the custom now followed
by the Churches of the West, of the South, and of
the North, and by some of those of the East, is the most acceptable, it
has appeared good to all; and I have been guarantee for your consent,
that you would accept it with joy, as it is followed at Rome, in Africa,
in all Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, in all Achaia, and in the
dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and Cilicia. You should consider not only
that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but
also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we
should have nothing in common with the Jews. To sum up in few
words: By the unanimous judgment of all, it has been decided that the
most holy festival of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one
and the same day, and it is not seemly that in so holy a thing there
should be any division. As this is the state of the case, accept joyfully
the divine favour, and this truly divine command; for all which takes
place in assemblies of the bishops ought to be regarded as proceeding
from the will of God. Make known to your brethren what has been
decreed, keep this most holy day according to the prescribed mode; we
can thus celebrate this holy Easter day at the same time, if it is granted
me, as I desire, to unite myself with you; we can rejoice together,
seeing that the divine power has made use of our instrumentality for
destroying the evil designs of the devil, and thus causing faith, peace,
and unity to flourish amongst us. May God graciously protect you, my
beloved brethren.

from DOCUMENTS FROM THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA [THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL] A.D. 325
This is the Decree from the first Pontiff of the Roman church to all the world.
Emperor Constantine, Emperor of the Roman Empire
He had issued an Edict making Sunday the day of rest
In 321 CE, while a Pagan sun-worshiper, the Emperor Constantine
declared that Sunday was to be a day of rest throughout the Roman Empire:

"On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest,
and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture
may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day
is not suitable for gain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment
for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost."
Council of Laodicea circa 364 CE ordered that religious observances were
to be conducted on Sunday, not Saturday. Sunday became the new Sabbath.
They ruled: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day."

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

You wrote:

“If that’s the case.....why does your Church not celebrate Passover and the other Biblically instituted Feast Days that were observed by Our Lord and all the Apostles? Were they too Jewish?”

Christians were released from exclusively Jewish requirements: kosher laws for instance.

Also, in case you didn’t know - and apparently you don’t - Christians had ceased to celebrate most or all Jewish feast days before both Constantine and Augustine.

“You can search the New Testament and will not find one solitary commandment to do away with The Lord’s Festivals.”

What you find is a rather clear sweeping away of Jewish requirements for Christians.

“This was done entirely on the authority of the Early Church with no scriptural commands whatsoever.”

Again, in Acts, Jesus did away with Jewish requirements.

“Those who continued to observe these Holy Days were persecuted and threatened with death if they continued.”

Judaizers were doctrinally wrong and often mistakenly placed works righteousness (based on Mosaic law and Jewish practice) in the way of salvation by free grace.

“Many early congregations still celebrated Passover well into the third, fourth and fifth centuries but your Councils and Synods called these folks heretics and supplanted these observances with pagan customs and observances instead.”

No, those who disobediently maintained Judaizing practices were called what they were and no pagan beliefs were placed on them at all.

“No.....it’s a Biblical position not supported by your Church!”

No. If it was Biblical someone orthodox over the last 2000 years would have said so. Instead, we only hear this from the fringes of modernist restorationist movements, Judaizing sects and assorted wackos.

“As far as I know....very few Protestants observe Passover......or the other festivals.”

Good for them. There’s no reason to observe things now made manifestly better in Christ’s Incarnation, Atonement and Resurrection.

You wrote:

“The existence of the Catholic Bishop of Rome (same positional authority as a Pope) Sylvester I (314-335 A.D.) who approved (for Christendom) Constantine the Great’s 321 AD Edict - changing the Sabbath to Sunday.”

What? IS that a sentence or a fragment? It seems to be half of a very long sentence with no real point yet. I have no idea what you’re saying, but I do know you stole it from here without attribution: http://bibleprobe.com/sundayworship.htm

I would really appreciate it if you would be honest in the future and admit when you take things form places. Can you do that? It’s not hard.

“That’s one your wrong on. Read the two Babylon’s and your eyes will be opened as to the parallels of the Babylonian religion and the RCC.”

I’ve read portions of it and could barely keep from laughing aloud. The book is nonsense. Ralph Woodrow exposed Hislop’s slop for the schlock it is years ago already. Hislop made up things out of whole cloth. He is not taken seriously as a scholar by ANYONE who has a academic or scholarly reputation.

“I’m glad to hear that God makes saint and not the Catholic church because God does not place them on pedestal but the RCC does.”

No, God makes saints and that means HE puts them on a pedestal.

“PS all believers are saints alive and dead.”

But we were talking about SAINT Augustine and he IS NOT alive on this earth, but he is alive in heaven.

You wrote:

“This may come a a surprise to you:
Jesus is a Jew”

No, that is not a surprise to me. Is it a surprise to you that you’re a Judaizer?

“When He returns He will rule on the throne of King David in Jerusalem.”

So say those who believe in an earthly reign.

“Miriam was a Jew”

Mary, yes, she was a Jew too. Is that news to you? You know what she wasn’t? A Judaizer.

“The apostles were all Jews”

Yep. Is that news to you too? And you know what they weren’t? They weren’t Judaizers.

“All of the books of the Bible were written by Jews.”

Luke was not Jewish as far as we know. He clearly was Greek in culture and that is not explained away if he was a hellenized Jew. He wrote two books of the Bible. In case you didn’t know.

“If you are saved it is by a Jewish Messiah.”

Yes, but it was truly His sacrifice as God-man that saved. And it saves me whether I’m Jewish or not in origin.

“Easter is a Pagan feast introduced into the RCC by a Pagan: Constantine.”

Nope. Easter already existed - since AD 33. Anyone who knows anything about history knows this is true by virtue of the fact that there were arguments over the proper dating of Easter before Constantine was even born.

The existence of the Catholic Bishop of Rome (same positional authority as a Pope) Sylvester I (314-335 A.D.) who approved (for Christendom) Constantine the Great's 321 AD Edict - changing the Sabbath to Sunday.

You've obviously confused Augustine, the Catholic bishop of the North African town of Hippo, the "Doctor of Grace", with Constantine, the Roman Emperor, who was certainly friendly to Christianity but may or may not have died an Arian heretic rather than a Catholic.

They aren't the same person, not even close.

Christians were worshipping on Sunday long before Constantine. Even some of the SDAs admit that now. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in AD 110, congratulates some of those to whom he was writing on "no longer Sabbathing". Justin Martyr (AD 150) and others write of Christians meeting for worship "on the first day of the week, the day named for the sun".

Read the two Babylon's and your eyes will be opened as to the parallels of the Babylonian religion and the RCC.

An awesomely stupid and wrong book, based on poorly-understood 1840's archaeology, glued together with one logical fallacy after another.

Ralph Woodrow is a Baptist who wrote a book endorsing Hislop's idiocy. Then a fellow Baptist challenged him to look at it more closely, and he began to see the errors all over Hislop's book. He wrote another book, The Babylon Connection, exposing and explaining those errors. I suggest you read it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.