Posted on 09/12/2013 4:22:27 AM PDT by imardmd1
In 1962, philosopher-scientist Thomas Kuhn coined the term “paradigm shift” to signal a massive change in the way a community thinks about a particular topic. Examples of paradigm shifts include Copernicus’s discovery that the earth revolves around the sun, Einstein’s theory of relativity, and Darwin’s theory of evolution. Each changed the world of thought (some for better, some for worse) in a fundamental way.
From a political perspective, Constantine’s Edict of Milan, issued in AD 313, constituted the formal beginning of a major paradigm shift that signaled the end of the ancient world and the beginning of the medieval period. That edict legitimated Christianity and impressed upon it the Empire’s stamp of approval.
(snip)
It is a fair question to ask: “Why do we care about the eschatological views of the early church fathers?” We as evangelicals emphatically agree with Hodge that “the true method of theology… assumes that the Bible contains all the facts or truths which form the contents of theology.” As Ryrie cogently put it:
The fact that something was taught in the first century does not make it right (unless taught in the canonical Scriptures), and the fact that something was not taught until the nineteenth century does not make it wrong unless, of course, it is unscriptural.
(snip)
From a theological perspective—specifically an eschatological one—the Edict of Milan also signaled a monumental paradigm shift—from the well-grounded premillennialism of the ancient church fathers to the amillennialism or postmillennialism that would dominate eschatological thinking from the fourth century AD to at least the middle part of the nineteenth century. Yet, as explored below, the groundwork for this shift was laid long before Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in AD 313. In the two centuries that led up to the edict, two crucial interpretive errors found their way into the church that made conditions ripe for the paradigm shift incident to the Edict of Milan. The second century fathers failed to keep clear the biblical distinction between Israel and the church. Then, the third century fathers abandoned a more-or-less literal method of interpreting the Bible in favor of Origen’s allegorical-spiritualized hermeneutic. Once the distinction between Israel and the church became blurred, once a literal hermeneutic was lost, with these foundations removed, the societal changes occasioned by the Edict of Milan caused fourth century fathers to reject premillennialism in favor of Augustinian amillennialism.
(snip)
The crushing blow for premillennialism came with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, by which Constantine reversed the Roman Empire’s policy of hostility toward Christianity and accorded it full legal recognition and even favor. Historian Paul Johnson calls the issuance of this edict “one of the decisive events in world history. With it, no longer was the blood of the martyrs the seed of the church. Rather, Christianity would be, in many ways, a mirror-image of the empire itself. “It was catholic, universal, ecumenical, orderly, international, multi-racial and increasingly legalistic.” It was a huge force for stability. Hence, Christianity after 313 would become worldly, rather than other-worldly.
The church’s new-found favor from Rome caused dramatic upheavals. Jerome complained that “one who was yesterday a catechumen is today a bishop; another moves overnight from the ampitheatre to the church; a man who spent the evening in the circus stands next morning at the altar, and another who was recently a patron of the stage is now the dedicator of virgins.” He wrote that “our walls glitter with gold, and gold gleams upon our ceilings and the capitals of our pillars; yet Christ is dying at our doors in the person of his poor, naked and hungry.”
Thus, the focus of the church changed from looking for ultimate comfort in the world beyond the grave to seeking comfort in this world, in the here and now. Christianity was viewed as “a religion with a glorious past as well as an unlimited future. As a result, it suffered what Johnson called “a receding, indeed, disappearing, eschatology.”
(snip)
The lesson for us is that we must continually guard against interpreting the Bible according to current events—a point often lost on some of dispensational millennialism’s more popular proponents.
The bottom line, of course, is that we must continually go back to the Scriptures as our only source for “doing theology.” As much as we may respect and admire the early church fathers, or, for that matter, the reformers, the puritans, or a particular modern spiritual leader, we must always remember to be Bereans, checking their conclusions and reasoning against the plumb line of God’s Word. No one could put it more clearly or forcefully than Martin Luther as he boldly and defiantly proclaimed before the Diet of Worms: “Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God… Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.”
Do you have a degree or training in Theology? How about some proof that you have extensive knowledge of Greek?
Well, Protestantism was a revolt of the philogists against tradition, and even against history. There is nothing in the text of the Gospels/Acts that allow such an individualist and anti-hierarchial interpretation that you are trying to enforce her. Carried to its logical conclusions—and is already was in the day of Luther—it does not even required the text itself, since the Holy Spirit will raise up Prophets/seers of the sort who appeared while Luther was in hiding and doing his translation of the Bible.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.<<
They were even commended for checking scripture to see if what Paul was teaching was according to scripture. Catholics don’t have the sense to check what the guys in pagan hats teach.
Are you not savvy enough to realize there are numerous Greek lexicons on line that you could double check yourself? This Catholic tendency to attack the messenger is rather pathetic.
The Scriptures being the Hebrew Scriptures for collaboration of Paul’s testimony that Jesus is the Messiah.
You don’t read scripture much? Even your beloved Peter said what Paul wrote was included in scripture.
2 Peter 3:15b. As also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given him, [16] as in all his letters, speaking concerning these matters, in which some things are hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also THE OTHER SCRIPTURES. [17] You then, beloved ones, being forewarned, watch lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being let away with the delusion of the lawless.
Other Scriptures not specified. But in the case of the Jewish Scriptures, likely in Greek, and many going by the Alexandrian canon.
Catholics don’t like scripture much do they.
We just don’t pretend to have the authority you claim, especially when Scripture itself does not give us such authority. Bulltman, you know, sought to give his students the ability to read koine Greek with the same eyes as a first century Christian. We know what conclusions he ended with. One reason being that we are not first century Christians and are influenced by ideas that never occurred to them and/or opposed to ideas we little understand.
Yeah, you can follow the guys in the pagan hats but I’ll follow what was written in scripture. I’ll not add to it nor take away from it and trust in the Holy Spirit to guide me. You can be guided by the guys in pagan hats if you want.
I am more than savvy enough. I am wondering why I should take your word over that of say... The Ph.D. that I studied New Testament Greek with in Graduate school. I have checked a number of sources and the unbiased secular ones agree with him and myself.
Feel free to have the last word
>>”you will see that the only definition is Church”<<
Now the word used in the Greek is ekklésia so let’s see what the definitions are.
Ekklésia
a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating the assembly of the Israelites any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously in a Christian sense an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven [http://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?q=ekklesia&s=References&rc=LEX&rc2=LEX%20GRK]
Acts 19: 39 But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly (ekklēsia).
ἐκκλησία, ἐκκλεσιας, ἡ (from ἔκκλητος called out or forth, and this from ἐκκαλέω); properly, a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place; an assembly; so used. [http://biblesuite.com/thayers/1577.htm]
So your “only definition” seems rather off base to say the least. Unless of course you consider the pagans of Ephesus which are being talked to in Acts 19:39 to be part of your Roman Catholic Church.
******What is this, some kind of inquisition? Catholics sure do like to keep asking a lot of leading questions.*****
Nice.
I’m asking the questions because you expressed concern for Catholics who are in grave error.
I’m asking the questions because Catholics do believe in Jesus; that He is the Son of God, the Word Incarnate, who was born of a virgin, crucified and rose again.
Catholics do believe that Jesus lived and died to redeem humanity so that those who believe in Him might have everlasting life in the heavenly kingdom.
According to your own stated beliefs, since Catholics believe in Jesus and cannot lose their salvation for any reason, then why would the “grave error” you accuse them of be of any concern.
According to your own stated beliefs, we are saved and will remain so regardless of whatever beliefs we hold that you don’t accept.
Well, as with Mormons and others let’s see if that is the same Jesus of scripture.
Jesus said this.
Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God
But the RCC says this.
“We need not shrink from admitting that candles, like incense and lustral water, were commonly employed in pagan worship and the rites paid to the dead. But the Church from a very early period took them into her service, just as she adopted many other things indifferent in themselves, which seemed proper to enhance the splendor of religious ceremonial. We must not forget that most of these adjuncts to worship, like music, lights, perfumes, ablutions, floral decorations, canopies, fans, screens, bells, vestments etc. were not identified with any idolatrous cult in particular; but they were common to almost all cults” (Catholic Encyclopedia, III, 246.)
Definitely not the same Jesus there. Let’s try another one.
Jesus said this.
Romans 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
And this.
Ephesians 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
But the RCC says this.
2679 Mary is the perfect Orans (pray-er), a figure of the Church. When we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus' mother into our homes, for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and to her. The prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope.
And this.
Our gaze is directed toward you in great fear, to you do we turn with ever-more insistent faith in these times marked by many uncertainties and fears for the present and future of our planet. Together we lift our confident and sorrowful petition to you, the first fruit of humanity redeemed by Christ, finally freed from the slavery of evil and sin: hear the cry of the pain of victims of war and so many forms of violence that bloody the earth. Clear away the darkness of sorrow and worry, of hate and vengeance. Open up our minds and hearts to faith and forgiveness!” —Pope John Paul II
Nope, not the same Jesus there.
I could go on and on but the fact is that the RCC is not teaching or serving the Jesus of scripture.
>> According to your own stated beliefs, we are saved and will remain so regardless of whatever beliefs we hold that you don’t accept.<<
Sorry Jvette, my “stated beliefs” are that if we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ we will be saved. That can only be the Lord Jesus Christ that is revealed in scripture. Clearly the RCC does not serve that same Jesus but a different Jesus who they have conjured up from the combination of paganism and Christianity. So you see, Catholics are really no different than Mormons and others who claim they believe in Jesus but it’s clearly a different Jesus then the Jesus of scripture.
Of course you would try to make that claim, i.e. that Catholics do not believe in the same Jesus, but as usual you are absolutely wrong.
That erroneous belief certainly explains why credible dialogue is not possible with you.
In your quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Church does not violate the verse from Deuteronomy as they do not offer the same worship to God as the pagans offered to their false gods. The Church did not seek out those things in order to emulate the pagans and that passage does not “admit” to such a thing.
This is not a gotcha, however much one might want it to be.
All things belong to God and the use of inanimate objects in worshiping Him do not constitute a belief in a different Jesus. As Jesus said, it is not what enters a man’s mouth that defiles him, it is that which comes out of the mouth that defiles him. He goes on to explain that what comes from the mouth comes from the heart.
St. Paul speaking about meat offered to idols said that there is nothing wrong with eating, otherwise, he would no longer eat. The meat itself is not intrinsically immoral, but the extrinsic circumstances of being sacrificed to false gods or idols is what makes eating it wrong.
This is just another red herring thrown out to try to convince others of utter nonsense.
The Jesus of the Catholic faith is our salvation, Our Redeemer, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. There is no other.
If one carefully reads those quotes about Mary, one will see that in both, Jesus/Christ and God are the source of all that we praise in Mary. She is the perfect pray-er because of her perfect obedience to God’s plan. In the second, she is the first HUMAN fruit of Christ’s redemptive mission.
Do you disagree that Mary was part of God’s plan and that Christ is indeed the redeemer?
*****Clearly the RCC does not serve that same Jesus but a different Jesus who they have conjured up from the combination of paganism and Christianity. So you see, Catholics are really no different than Mormons and others who claim they believe in Jesus but it’s clearly a different Jesus then(sic) the Jesus of scripture.*****
Clear only to one with a hatred that blinds them to the truth.
The Jesus of Scripture is indeed the Jesus that Catholics worship and follow.
Deny it all you wish but that is exactly what the quote from the Catholic site says it did. They said “But pagan though they be, they are beautiful customs” and “which seemed proper to enhance the splendor of religious ceremonial.” But God said not to add to what He had instructed. Then there are all the other vestments, rituals, and images that the RCC added like those fish hats from the priests of the fish god Dagon. Catholicism has pagan intertwined with Christianity which God refers to as whoring around with other gods.
LOL, I do no deny anything. Like the Church, I am unafraid of the Truth and stand unabashedly with it. I meant exactly what I said and so does the Church.
What I do is reject the slanted way it is presented, as if those few short sentences is all there is to it.
Reminds me of the New York Times headline regarding the interview with Pope Francis.
It is to be expected and accepted as there is no changing the way the world views what it does not understand.
Contrary to what many modern Dispensationalist apologists argue, the early church writers were not mainly Premillennialist. In fact, the doctrine, which seems to have had its origin in Asia Minor, was mainly limited to that area for many yrs.
The only early writers that held what modern-day Premils believe was Commodianus (Africa), Victorinus (Pettau, Hungary), Lactantius (Africa).
My faith is not based on the early post-apostolic apologists's writings. I'll stick with the writers of both Old and New Testament.
Pious but uninspired jottings of fallible men may be of some interest historically. However, they must all be held up to the candle of Biblical truths; with which in fact, many cannot compare.
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.