Would someone from the church that existed in 400 AD recognize it today? What about someone from 1300 AD? 1700 AD? What would they think if they walked into a modern church service? If the language barrier was removed, could they understand what was happening in the service? Besides the practice, what would they think of the doctrine being preached? These kinds of questions make one stop and consider just how historic the Christian faith professed today actually is.
As more and more Christians begin to question how the society around them has influenced the faith that they believe, they begin to turn to resources that have not been affected by our current society to see the differences in the faith from one to the other. The most important of these resources is, of course, the scriptures themselves, but there also seems to be a growing interest in what the early church believed among evangelicals. Books such as Evangelicals and Tradition and the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture are the first two examples that come to mind regarding evangelicals investigating this area of their history.
What will come of this new interest is hard to tell. One thing that should arise from it is a re-examination of doctrines that were at one time considered “too catholic” and laughed off by evangelicals. One of the easier early church fathers to read (therefore most likely to be read), and one that is likely the most respected among protestants, is Augustine. Yet, when evangelicals begin to read a work of his such as The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love they will quickly realize that many of the beliefs he held to are vastly different from what evangelicals believe. His understanding of the church and the sacraments is not one that would be allowed to be taught in evangelical churches today. One will very quickly begin to question how someone so well respected in the church could believe in baptismal regeneration, and if a person such as he could make such a mistake (as evangelicals say he did), what kind of mistakes have been made in belief by evangelicals today who are not fit to be compared to Augustine?
The investigation of the early church is mainly an investigation of another Christian tradition. As evangelicals have explored other protestant traditions through ecumenical relationships, it seems they are now more willing to explore the early church through research and study. Although Luther had hard words sometimes for the early church fathers, he (and the other Reformers such as Calvin) were well aware of their beliefs and understood them quite well (look at who Calvin quotes in his Institutes all the time). More and more, evangelicals may wish to see how the faith that they hold to has been influenced by the culture we live in. By looking at the faith in a totally different culture, we will see many differences - but also much in common.
“Would someone from the church that existed in 400 AD recognize it today? What about someone from 1300 AD?”
Nope.
“1700 AD?”
Those in the American low-church tradition wouldn’t have too much of a problem with the more traditional churches today.
The other questions are more difficult.
But does that necessarily mean that the early church was correct (or more correct) in all of their traditions and methods and doctrines? There was a lot of heresy going around in the early churches, much of which took centuries to cleanse.
For the dates I simply picked Augustine, Aquinas, and then Edwards’ time periods. I think Edwards would have a lot of issues with how churches are done today but would still recognize it.
I’m not trying to suggest that the early church was correct in everything it did, but that it’s a tradition that should be investigated becasue it is so radically different then what we have today, and it was not influenced by the culture we have today and therefore can be used to see what effect the culture we have today has had on the church.
Yes, I agree. As long as one doesn’t go to the extreme and give the early church too much credence just because they’re “early” and closer to the time of Jesus and the apostles. Even the apostles had some wrong ideas (i.e. Paul chastising Peter) that had to be worked out.
Even the apostles had some wrong ideas (i.e. Paul chastising Peter) that had to be worked out.
Are you referring to the episode described in Galatians 2? I am working through this now in my personal study and I have found this passage of scripture quite perplexing.
What about it perplexes you?
I believe scripture is clear about the need for personal, private confrontation on these matters (which Paul does in the first part in Jerusalem) but then he just goes nuts on Peter in the last half of the chapter, in front of new Christians. It doesn’t strike me as the best way to handle the situation.
Ah. But it would seem that on big issues (and Peter’s legalism was a big issue), Scripture tells us to call to account those who are in error. If they refuse to repent, kick them out of the church. I don’t see how you could keep an excommunication very private. After all, Jesus did say to Peter in front of all the disciples (relatively new Christians themselves at the time) “Get behind me Satan!” That must have been a bit offensive and/or confusing to them.
I don’t think Paul was excommunicating Peter, nor is “legalism” an excommunicable offense.
Also we cannot pull them away from their legalism so that they would sin in their conscience. Paul articulates this clearly in Romans 14:
Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand… Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way. I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.
So my confusion is reconciling Paul’s actions with his words.
Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that Paul was excommunicating Peter. He was correcting Peter’s hypocrisy. Hypocrisy and legalism aren’t necessarily heresy, but they can very easily lead to it. Legalism, at least the type that Paul was describing in Galations 2, discredits the work of faith and Christ’s sacrifice.
Paul wasn’t disputing over “doubtful things” with Peter, such as cleanliness of food. Rather, Paul was calling Peter to account for his hypocrisy between the two. Eat unclean food according to a clean conscience, or don’t eat unclean food according to a weak faith, but don’t do both! Peter was showing freedom with Gentiles, but then acting like he was still tied to the law when he was with Jews.
Thanks. That helps a lot!
Peter’s behavior differs from what Paul called becoming “all things to all men so that by all possible means” some might be saved. Peter was not doing it out of an attempt to be relevant, but out of peer pressure from other Jews to follow the law and separate from Gentiles who didn’t.
Had Peter merely abstained from un-kosher foods when some Jewish Christians came to town (or the opposite: eaten freely of all foods in the presence of clear-conscienced Gentiles), Paul likely would have had no issue with Peter. But instead, Peter was buddy buddy with the Gentiles until the Jews showed up, at which time Peter began giving the cold shoulder to the Gentiles while hobnobbing with the Jews. And one reason Paul called him out publically on it was that his behavior was quite public, everyone could see his hypocrisy and it was throwing the Gospel into disrepute.