Acts 15: And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.
After a lifetime of surveying the political landscape of historic Christianity—and pushing past personalities and scandals—I find that the manner in which a denomination integrates or divorces the two covenants determines its theology and worship. Perhaps I’ll write a book, or at least read one that satisfies my longing.
At present, I see a continuum of integration. Working from high integration to low integration, I see this basic progression: Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, independent free-will Baptist.
I wonder why the God Most High didn’t give us a better written record (Holy Writ) of integration? Something that was so clear that Christians of good conscience wouldn’t divide over the issue? Or maybe the pattern of Apostolic thinking and worship was imprinted so deeply, that its maintenance was unquestioned for a millennium?
My working hypothesis: God gave us enough for our salvation, but not so much that we wouldn't devote time to His word in order to better understand.
As for the unquestioned maintenance for a millennium, I keep in mind that these were questioned: some by churches that we still consider fully Christian (although some would say not the "best" Christian), for example the non-Chalcedonian Churches; some by churches we might consider less so (say the Church of the East); and some not at all (say the Arians, who, for quite some time, represented the majority of Christians).
I recall from Payton in his book of samplings from early Church Fathers, he wrote something like "it's great and amazing how consistent and uniform they were on so many key points" (I am greatly paraphrasing). And I thought...well, that doesn't really prove anything - he is only including writing that fits within the accepted tradition. We wouldn't consider these "Church Fathers" if they didn't fit within the accepted tradition.
When we look backward from our time, it is easy to find a straight line (I think of the easiest way I always found to solve a maze puzzle in the newspaper). But, when you look forward, from where they stood, there were many possible turns and options.
My thrust was that regardless of the nuances of their Christology, the churches of the first millennium were predominantly sacramental, and their worship focused on the Eucharist.
After the fissure that began in 1517, the centrality of the Eucharist in worship began to shift to the homily or sermon, based not just on attempts to rediscover lower-case orthodoxy, but to reflect the newness of the New Covenant.
Thus we have high churches with priests and altars and low churches with pastors in casual attire and Lucite lecterns. All worship Jesus of Nazareth, with differences seen as good/bad, rather than seeing the varied practices as reflections of deeper understandings of how the covenants mesh.
I think fulfillment is an important concept to understand the issue of circumcision. Earlier in Acts Peter receives the vision of the unclean animals. God tells Peter, that He has cleansed what was once unclean. The statement referred to dietary laws, some other aspects of The Law, and Gentiles.
After a lifetime of surveying the political landscape of historic Christianity—and pushing past personalities and scandals—I find that the manner in which a denomination integrates or divorces the two covenants determines its theology and worship. Perhaps I’ll write a book, or at least read one that satisfies my longing.
At present, I see a continuum of integration. Working from high integration to low integration, I see this basic progression: Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, independent free-will Baptist.
I wonder why the God Most High didn’t give us a better written record (Holy Writ) of integration? Something that was so clear that Christians of good conscience wouldn’t divide over the issue? Or maybe the pattern of Apostolic thinking and worship was imprinted so deeply, that its maintenance was unquestioned for a millennium?
Why wasn't God a systematic theologian?!!!
My working hypothesis: God gave us enough for our salvation, but not so much that we wouldn't devote time to His word in order to better understand.
As for the unquestioned maintenance for a millennium, I keep in mind that these were questioned: some by churches that we still consider fully Christian (although some would say not the "best" Christian), for example the non-Chalcedonian Churches; some by churches we might consider less so (say the Church of the East); and some not at all (say the Arians, who, for quite some time, represented the majority of Christians).
I recall from Payton in his book of samplings from early Church Fathers, he wrote something like "it's great and amazing how consistent and uniform they were on so many key points" (I am greatly paraphrasing). And I thought...well, that doesn't really prove anything - he is only including writing that fits within the accepted tradition. We wouldn't consider these "Church Fathers" if they didn't fit within the accepted tradition.
When we look backward from our time, it is easy to find a straight line (I think of the easiest way I always found to solve a maze puzzle in the newspaper). But, when you look forward, from where they stood, there were many possible turns and options.
My thrust was that regardless of the nuances of their Christology, the churches of the first millennium were predominantly sacramental, and their worship focused on the Eucharist.
After the fissure that began in 1517, the centrality of the Eucharist in worship began to shift to the homily or sermon, based not just on attempts to rediscover lower-case orthodoxy, but to reflect the newness of the New Covenant.
Thus we have high churches with priests and altars and low churches with pastors in casual attire and Lucite lecterns. All worship Jesus of Nazareth, with differences seen as good/bad, rather than seeing the varied practices as reflections of deeper understandings of how the covenants mesh.
Yes, I understand now. Thank you.
I think fulfillment is an important concept to understand the issue of circumcision. Earlier in Acts Peter receives the vision of the unclean animals. God tells Peter, that He has cleansed what was once unclean. The statement referred to dietary laws, some other aspects of The Law, and Gentiles.