Posted on 02/28/2015 12:17:20 PM PST by RnMomof7
How much is your church like the ancient church?
That’s a popular question these days—especially if you read guys like Robert Webber, Brian McLaren, Wolfgang Simson, or Frank Viola and George Barna.
Most of the contemporary discussion about the ancient church attempts to show discrepancies between what is now and what was then. The not-so-subtle implication is that there is something very wrong with the contemporary church. Blame Constantine. Blame the Enlightenment. Blame Capitalism. Blame the Fundamentalists. It doesn’t really matter. The only way to fix the church today is to get back to the ancient church.
Based on this premise we are told (by some) that the church needs to be more sacramental, more liturgical, and more mystical. We ought to light candles, burn incense, celebrate the arts, foster community, and avoid conventional church structures (like, especially, preaching). By others, we are told that we need to meet in houses and not church buildings. (And again, cut down on the preaching.)
All of this is proposed on the supposition that these practices characterized the ancient church.
Really?
Is that what the ancient church was like? And have theologically-conservative, Bible-believing churches in America gone so far off course that the twenty-first century church looks nothing like the early church of the first or second centuries?
Perhaps the best way to answer such questions, rather than perusing modern books on the subject, is to read a description of the ancient church by someone who was actually there.
Enter Justin Martyr.
Justin was born toward the end of the first century. He died in 165 as a martyr for his faith in Jesus Christ.
Around 150, he wrote a defense of the faith to the Roman emperor—called his First Apology—arguing that Christianity should not be illegal. In the course of his defense, he describes what a typical church service was like in his day.
I think you’ll be encouraged to see what was included in an ancient Christian worship service.
(Note that Justin referred to the pastor by the term “president,” namely as the one “presiding” over the worship service. This was likely done because he using terminology that a pagan emperor would understand.)
Justin wrote:
On the day called Sunday there is a gathering together in the same place of all who live in a given city or rural district. The memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then when the reader ceases, the president [pastor] in a discourse admonishes and urges the imitation of these good things. Next we all rise together and send up prayers.
When we cease from our prayer, bread is presented and wine and water. The president in the same manner sends up prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people sing out their assent, saying the ‘Amen.’ A distribution and participation of the elements for which thanks have been given is made to each person, and to those who are not present they are sent by the deacons.
Those who have means and are willing, each according to his own choice, gives what he wills, and what is collected is deposited with the president. He provides for the orphans and widows, those who are in need on account of sickness or some other cause, those who are in bonds, strangers who are sojourning, and in a word he becomes the protector of all who are in need.But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration. (First Apology, 67)
Per Justin’s description, we get a pretty good idea of what took place in an ancient Christian church service. Notice at least seven important factors: (1) Scripture was read, from both the New Testament (“the memoirs of the apostles”) and the Old Testament (“the writings of the prophets”). (2) The pastor preached a message (“discourse”), exhorting the people to obey the things they had just heard from the Scripture. (3) The congregation prayed together. (4) The congregation participated in commemorating the Lord’s Supper. (5) In their preparation for Communion, the pastor prayed and the congregation sang songs of affirmation. (6) An offering was taken in order to meet the needs of fellow saints. (7) All of this took place on Sunday, the day on which Jesus rose from the dead.
When I read Justin’s description I am encouraged, because those same things are found at my church too. Like the ancient church described here, we read the Scripture, listen to preaching, pray, sing, give, and regularly celebrate the Lord’s Table. And, of course, we also meet on Sundays.
When contemporary authors argue that the church needs to get back to the “ancient practices” of the church, my question is: What “ancient practices” are they talking about? The sacramental mysticism of the medieval period perhaps?
If you really want the ancient church, it doesn’t get any more ancient than the quote provided above. In fact, Justin’s description of an ancient church service is the earliest we have outside the New Testament.
So, should we get back to the practices of the ancient church? If this passage from Justin provides the model, I’m all for it.
And making the leadership in the Catholic Church that wouldn't even qualify as "elders" in the New Testament ekklesia per Paul.
I will ask you, where do the Scriptures teach it is a sin to drink the blood of Christ?
Christ commands us to do it.
We sin but not doing it or by claiming it is a sin to drink His blood.
No He doesn’t.
He says Himself that the cup is the fruit of the vine.
Jesus blood was for atonement, not consumption.
It was to be poured out for our sins.
Scripture does not distinguish when it says *blood*. Only those who wish to disobey God and follow the teachings of the RCC will make that distinction, and most Catholics do.
Obeying the clear commands of Jesus seems to be a real stumbling block for Catholics
hmm, let’s see who has a problem obeying this clear command:
“drink of it all of you, FOR THIS IS MY BLOOD of the covenant”
Christians have had no problem for 2,000 years obeying Christ.
those following the 16th century tradition of men, different story.
for this is my blood........
for this is my blood........
for this is my blood........
the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?
and from blood. NO exceptions.
Of course not...There were no Catholics back then...
The Roman Catholic Church was a part of the Orthodox Church, believing and teaching the same doctrines and Sacred Tradition, until 1054. It was the Roman Catholic Church that broke away from the Orthodox Church. In that year the Patriarch of Rome, or the bishop of Rome, also known as the Pope of Rome broke away from the original Church by making unacceptable claims of authority over the entire Christian Church. Since then, the Roman Catholic Church has added new teachings, which the ancient Christian Church above rejects. One of these is the Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope. Not only this doctrine but also other matters of the faith have developed within the Roman Catholic Church which has since has separated both these Churches.
Don't you think it's a little queer that the Orthodox claim the authority for being the first, real church as well as your religion???
Since history shows that your religion didn't have a pope until at least the 6th Century, it's clear that the Orthodox were the originators of your dual religion...So Justin Martyr may have called himself Orthodox but certainly not Catholic...
Besides, the catholic religion is referenced as the universal religion while the (C)atholic (C)urch is an institution...
all Christians already knew when the book of Acts was written that Jesus COMMANDED us to eat his body and drink his blood.
this only became an issue in the 16th century.
read ALL the Bible, not picking a verse out of context.
what does the Orthodox Church teach about the cup of blessing and drinking the blood of Christ???
again, anyone following the Apostolic Faith as the Orthodox do in this regard, as opposed to the novelty taught first in the 16th century, drink the blood of Christ.
And to return to the point that brought me to this thread (post 25), writing in the early 100’s, Justin Martyr had no hesitance in declaring the consumption of the Blood of Christ in the services of the ancient church.
Where is there ANY disputation of this until the 16th century?
But what IS the church Justin Martyr speaks of???
Most of his works are lost, but two apologies and a dialogue did survive. The First Apology, his most well known text, passionately defends the morality of the Christian life, and provides various ethical and philosophical arguments to convince the Roman emperor, Antoninus, to abandon the persecution of the fledgling sect.
Further, he also makes the theologically-innovative suggestion that the "seeds of Christianity" (manifestations of the Logos acting in history) actually predated Christ's incarnation. This notion allows him to claim many historical Greek philosophers (including Socrates and Plato), in whose works he was well studied, as unknowing Christians.
That makes sense since your religion is built almost exclusively on human philosophy and not actual scripture...
one more and then I am done.
1 Corinthians 11:25
in the same way also the cup, after dinner, saying “this cup is the new covenant IN MY BLOOD. do this, AS OFTEN AS YOU DRINK IT, in remembrance of me”
The covenant was IN HIS BLOOD. The cup wasn't His blood. The cup contained "the fruit of the vine" as a REMEMBRANCE of His shed blood.
And it was still a sin for Jesus and the apostles to eat blood.
From the same wiki that you linked, comes more that illuminates his actual belief.
Justin had, like others, the idea that the Greek philosophers had derived, if not borrowed, the most essential elements of truth found in their teaching from the Old Testament. But at the same time he adopted the Stoic doctrine of the “seminal word,” and so philosophy was to him an operation of the Word—in fact, through his identification of the Word with Christ, it was brought into immediate connection with him.[28]
Thus he does not scruple to declare that Socrates and Heraclitus were Christians (Apol., i. 46, ii. 10). His aim, of course, is to emphasize the absolute significance of Christ, so that all that ever existed of virtue and truth may be referred to him. The old philosophers and law-givers had only a part of the Logos, while the whole appears in Christ.[28]
**Worship is not intended for converting souls. Worship is focused on God, not man.**
The thread is titled “Getting Back to the Ancient Church”. You can’t get any more ancient than Acts chapter 2; which starts with souls in one accord, worshipping God in verse one (I don’t think they were in one accord about something secular), and then in verse two thru four, the Holy Ghost is poured out.
The next nine verses show the excitement of the event.
The next twenty-three verses show peter testifting of what has just happened, and why; preaching Jesus Christ’s witness of words and deeds, and death, burial, and resurrection.
The next verse shows the listeners responding, saying, “Men and brethern, what shall we do?”
Then Acts 2:38,39: “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”
Now, very likely in the span of verses 2 thru 39, less than an hour has elapsed since the Spirit was first poured out.
Skipping out on the beginning is what is wrong with so many church organizations today. They have a foundation that is missing pieces.
Acts wasn’t a worship service. They were just gathered together. They went outside and were confronted about their behavior.
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.