Ancient Christian Witness

As seen from HCR

Norm,

Let me restate the issue here because
apparently you do not understand the problem - or - perhaps you do understand it
and I can't tell that you do, because you never really addressed it. You
basically implied that I should not be allowed at the table because my view is
"new" - it has no "ancient" precedent. Ok. But here’s the problem. IF PM is
“apostolic doctrine”; AM, PoM, and even much of modern PM is NOT apostolic…it is
erroneous and was at one time NEW. And if AM, PoM, and much of modern PM was NEW
at some point and it is argued that NEW stuff can’t be allowed at the table;
then why are AMs, PoMs, and many modern PMs given a seat at the table?

That’s the jist of the post and you did not answer it, other than to
merely assert that you don’t see a problem with it.

The Bible only
teaches one correct eschatological view. It is simply impossible for PoM, AM,
and PM to all be right. Logically speaking, either one is correct or none are.
So no matter what view you want to plug in as the correct interpretation of
Scripture, that leaves the others as being in error and at some point they too
were “new” in the game. Again, for sake of argument, let’s just say
Premillennialism is the doctrine Paul taught. Then that means that
Amillennialism was a “new” and “erroneous” doctrine introduced into the church.
And so was Postmillennialism and anything else other than premillennialism.

So what you’re telling me is that basically because these other views
got their voice in a little sooner, they get a free pass? That is arbitrary and
complete nonsense.

Others have said, “well, though these views greatly
differ on some points, they ALL affirm the proposition that Jesus WILL
eventually return. This belief has been preserved by God in the church.” The
question then is, why is that one proposition made a test for fellowship? On
what Biblical grounds can that be made a test?

Again, you mean to tell
me that a premillennialist can go off with some of the most wackiest and
unbiblical ideas about a rebuilt temple, reinstituted ceremonies, gaps in
Daniel, etc., and yet because he affirms this ONE proposition, he can sit at the
table and I can’t and all because he got his thesis turned in a little earlier?
Again, complete nonsense.

Norm, I hope you and others truly rethink your
reasoning here. I find it very disturbing. I have suffered because of it and I
hear stories every week from others – true brothers and sisters in Christ – who
are suffering as well from leaders who reason this way.

As for the rest
of your posts, we’ve already been through that.

·The Church is not the
final authority. God’s word formed the church, not vice-a-versa.

·Being
a direct disciple of someone does not insure that the disciple carries on the
teacher’s doctrine at all points. Paul’s letters are filled with evidence to the
contrary. How many times did Paul have to remind his listeners and correct them?
Often.

PS. I am also tired of J.W., SDAs, and Mormons always being
brought up in a discussion with preterists. They simply don’t compare. In fact,
they have more in common with traditional eschatology than with Preterism.

PPS. It is an argument from silence, hence a fallacy, to claim that full
preterism is “new”. You simply have no idea what all was floating around in
those days. Granted, I can’t prove that it did exist – that whole argument is
irrelevant. Arguments from silence and appeals to tradition are fallacies, plain
and simple.

QUOTing Neb·"The Church is not the final authority. God’s word
formed the church, not vice-a-versa"

QUOTing Neb "Being a direct disciple of someone does not
insure that the disciple carries on the teacher’s doctrine at all points. Paul’s
letters are filled with evidence to the contrary. How many times did Paul have
to remind his listeners and correct them? Often."

QUOTing Neb, "PPS. It is an argument from silence, hence a
fallacy, to claim that full preterism is “new”. You simply have no idea what all
was floating around in those days. Granted, I can’t prove that it did exist –
that whole argument is irrelevant. Arguments from silence and appeals to
tradition are fallacies, plain and simple."

Quote:
Originally Posted by apokalum
Anyone have any
info on them? Doctrinal, historical, etc.?

Quote:
Originally Posted by apokalum
I'm interested
mainly in their core doctrines and their worship/preaching style.

I'm
interviewing for a gig at a private episcopalian high school so I'm trying to
figure out what's it about. I know if I get hired on I'll probably have to
attend chapel with everyone else.

All I can see from their site is that
it's diocesan.

"For the next few podcasts Dr. Nassif will be interviewing
three people who participated in the annual meeting of the Orthodox Theological
Society that recently met in Chicago. On today's broadcast, he interviews
Matthew Namee, a young historian. This is one young man whom Dr. Nassif believes
holds great promise as a future lay leader in our Church. You'll enjoy getting
to know Matthew as you learn about the vision the Lord has given him for his
work in the American Church. (11:49)"

The Embarrassment of Premillennialism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Premillennialism (PM), or Chiliasm (chilia is the Greek number for
1,000), is an embarrasment for Partial Preterists (PP), Postmillennialists (PoM)
and Amillennialists (AM). This short paper will highlight the reasons why it is
an embarrassment and why scholars who are not PM must downplay its place in
"historic Christianity." But, the way they downplay it actually undermines the
very argument they use against Biblical Preterism (BP).

First, the claim
that "historic Christianity" has always been united in eschatology is false.
Charles Hill, professor at Reformed Theological Seminary (and who co-authored a
book with Keith Mathison, When Shall These Things Be?), has tried to show that
PM was not the "only" millennialism around in the second century (Regnum
Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity, Eerdmans, 2001)
and does so convincingly. However, it is evident that the earliest writings we
have, and the dominant church fathers early on were Chiliasts. Hill lists 2
Baruch and 4th Ezra, two early Jewish documents, as chiliastic. I noted before
that Papias (70 to mid 2nd century A.D.) drew from 2nd Baruch (Hill notes this
as well). Further Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Commodianus,
Victorinus, Lactantius were all "definitely chiliasts" to quote Hill, who is an
AM.

The differences are noted. Some believed in an intermediate state
for the dead. Some believed that the translated went to Paradise immediately.
Others denied a subterranean middle state while others affirmed one. Big issues.

Now, the argument we often hear is that of "historic Christianity" and
that BP overturns it on the matter of eschatology. That is, if BP is true, then
God failed to guide the church. But, when one notes the confusion early on in
eschatology one can equally wonder why God failed to guide the church on the
question of the Millennium, or why God failed when the Pope and Medieval
theology arose until Luther recovered the doctrine of God's righteousness (he
simply read the Bible himself to discover this doctrine! Go figure). But, seeing
that this argument is as useless as a dead cat, it does point out interesting
problems.

Ireneaus, as we all know by now (those of you that have read
my blogs), claims that Papias got chiliasm from the mouth of Jesus, who taught
John, and John taught his elders who taught Papias who was an associate of
Polycarp who taught Irenaeus. All of this, of course, is questioned by the AM,
PoM and PP. But, this is the very source of the argument of "historic Christian
faith"!

This is the argument: the Historic Christian Faith has always
been united from the time of the Apostles onward according to the once and for
all time Tradition handed down from them to the leaders of the Second Century.
But, the very claim of that Tradition from Tertullian, Justin and Irenaeus is
that the "elders of John" taught PM! Papias is as early as we get to the time of
the Apostles! How in the world, then, can PP, AM, PoM justify their claims?

It is here that what they really mean by the Historic Christian Faith is
that regardless of what millennial view one hold to, they all believe in a
future Second Coming of Christ. The details don't matter. But, this undermines
the very argument that God guided the church. For, in the end, what it says is
that God guided the church to acknowledge a vague Second Coming, but provided
the same Church with no details! In other words, we have unity in the Second
Coming as future, but we all can tolerate each other on the fact that AM, PM, PP
and PoM contradict each other in the details (not to mention Dispen
-sationalism, Post-trib, Pre-trib, and Mid-trib, just to add a few more
meaningless "details" that God forgot to tell us about).

This is an
example of "unity in spite of the truth"! More dangerous is that this unity
minimizes biblical eschatology and the details as unimportant. In fact,
"pan-millennialism" runs in most churches probably because most Christians it
seems prefer not to talk about eschatology at all. And, when you start
mentioning details like 70 Weeks, Seven Headed Beast, Antichrist, 666, and
hundreds of other passages (the Bible is 1/3 eschatology) then we either argue
or simply leave the conversation since "nobody really knows." Hey, at least we
all agree that He is coming back, and that's enough, right?

So much for
God's word. Each word in the Bible is ordained and inspired by God to be there.
666 is God's holy and inspired word. "Seven heads" is inspired. "1,000 years" is
inspired. God put it there, in fact, He inspired hundreds of minute details and
points on eschatology – so many that very, very early on debates as to how all
these details worked out occurred. Hence, PM, AM and much later on PoM and PP.
What we as BP are asked to believe is that the Church, as a whole, got it wrong
on the details of the Second Coming, and that we can tolerate that, but they did
not get it wrong on ONE DETAIL: the he "shall come again" sometime in the
future! Now do you get the picture? These views must minimize the details of
God's word as unimportant, not important enough to divide over, but maximize a
sentence, not in the Bible, but in a man-made Creed: "he shall come again". The
Creed is an interpretation of eschatology and this single interpretation has
become the standard as to whether or not one is a "Christian." Shame on us
Protestants!

Imagine having a puzzle in front of you and it is not put
together. In fact, it's 8 puzzles all mixed up together. You have in front of
you ONE puzzle box with a picture. So, you know what ONE puzzle is to look like,
but have NO IDEA what the other 7 look like. That's the situation we have here.
God, so they say, has given us 8 puzzles (AM, PoM, PP, PM, Pre-Trib Disp.,
Post-Trib, Mid Trib….oh, I forgot Idealism and Historicism) and mixed them all
together, but gave us ONE PICTURE to work all of them out.

Let's use
another example. If a person tells you eight false propositions and one right
proposition is he to be trusted? Yet, this is what they say God has given to us.
Since all of these eschatologies cannot be right, in fact, none of them may be
right logically speaking, only one of them may be true. Logically speaking, they
cannot all be true. Since, then, we have more views than the one that is right,
I am to tolerate more falsehoods than I am to have the one truthful view! Unity
in spite of the Truth. And, get this, the BP is not welcome to the conversation
because he disagrees with the alleged one truthful proposition out all this
mess! Folks, dear readers, as you can see, this argument is completely shot.

Now, there is more. The BP must account for all these views as well, and
he must do so on account the framework of BP. In fact, BP is the only view that
can account for all these views for they all suffer from one fatal defect. They
are all attempting to apply unfulfilled prophecy to an Age of Fulfillment! Of
course none of them will work! God's Word was not intended to make them work!

Secondly, since the PoM, AM, and PP must discount the earliest view of
PM, then they, too, must admit that very early on something got wrong. Only the
PM view will work here (and some defectors from BP have rightly seen this
advocating that PM is the only biblical view).

In the view of BP,
prophecy CEASED. There was no "guiding" by the Spirit in the sense of inerrant
interpretation (of course, the Roman Catholic would disagree here). The Church
was made Perfect by the Spirit in terms of salvation, but this was not a promise
that in the ages to come she would have all her doctrinal ducks in a row from
day one. God was going to teach his church the ethic of love – which is the
hardest ethic to follow and the design was, according to Romans 14, to have
several views which conflict with each other. In this way we would be stretched
to preach a message of tolerance. We would still have to love one another in
spite of differing views – in short, the perfect church in Christ had to grow up
learning one thing: love one another and in this way would demonstrate
fulfillment of the Law (Romans 12-13).

The BP, on the basis of its
framework, can account for why error crept into the doctrinal formulations of
the church very early on. We are told to tolerate each other on several views of
eschatology, are we not? On what basis? For the creedolytryst, that basis is not
the Bible, but the Creeds. "He shall come again" is a statement of the Creed
that supposedly is the one detail the Church got right out of all the details
she got wrong. We have already exposed that error. The basis for tolerance is
the ethic of love as defined by Paul who was looking forward to the end of the
age and the Age to Come which would be characterized by loving one another.
There is no Prophet to whom we can ask, "which millennial view is correct?" We
are to figure it out together, working under One God, One Lord, One Faith in One
Body.

Because we have a different solution to the puzzles on the table,
we are told that we are not included in that One Faith. Take our solution
elsewhere. You can't play with us. But, because God has made the rules, not men,
we are invited by God Himself to sit at the table and begin to put the pieces
together that makes sense of all the other puzzles. Sure, the other kids won't
like us at first because we seem to be putting together these pieces at a rapid
pace. A picture is emerging that makes sense of it all – that explains the
reason why all these puzzles are here in the first place. A puzzle that unites
all these puzzles into one picture of what Christ has accomplished for us on the
CROSS. A puzzle that will show us what we all have been saying since day one of
the Church:

Alas! and did my Savior bleed
And did my Sovereign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For sinners such as I?

At the
cross, at the cross where I first saw the light,
And the burden of my heart
rolled away,
It was there by faith I received my sight,
And now I am
happy all the day!

Thy body slain, sweet Jesus, Thine—
And bathed in
its own blood—
While the firm mark of wrath divine,
His Soul in anguish
stood.

Was it for crimes that I had done
He groaned upon the tree?
Amazing pity! grace unknown!
And love beyond degree!

Well might
the sun in darkness hide
And shut his glories in,
When Christ, the
mighty Maker died,
For man the creature’s sin.

Thus might I hide my
blushing face
While His dear cross appears,
Dissolve my heart in
thankfulness,
And melt my eyes to tears.

But drops of grief can
ne’er repay
The debt of love I owe:
Here, Lord, I give my self away
’Tis all that I can do."

Quoting King NEb:
"The differences are noted. Some
believed in an intermediate state for the dead. Some believed that the
translated went to Paradise immediately. Others denied a subterranean middle
state while others affirmed one. Big issues."

Quote:
"It is here that what they really mean by the
Historic Christian Faith is that regardless of what millennial view one hold to,
they all believe in a future Second Coming of Christ. The details don't matter.
But, this undermines the very argument that God guided the church. For, in the
end, what it says is that God guided the church to acknowledge a vague Second
Coming, but provided the same Church with no details! In other words, we have
unity in the Second Coming as future, but we all can tolerate each other on the
fact that AM, PM, PP and PoM contradict each other in the details (not to
mention Dispen -sationalism, Post-trib, Pre-trib, and Mid-trib, just to add a
few more meaningless "details" that God forgot to tell us about).

This
is an example of "unity in spite of the truth"! More dangerous is that this
unity minimizes biblical eschatology and the details as unimportant. In fact,
"pan-millennialism" runs in most churches probably because most Christians it
seems prefer not to talk about eschatology at all."

We're tackling this issue at our church now....

shall we discuss??

Any takers?

love ya,
D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azriel
I never knew that J....could you post
some links to where I could read up on that??Thanks fam...mad love, D

Quote:
"The Office of Deaconess

The office of
deaconess was abolished in the West before the eleventh century, but in the East
it lasted to the end of the Byzantine period in the fifteenth century. It is now
retained only in some Orthodox convents.

St. Paul mentions the first
deaconess, St. Phoebe of the Church at Cenchrea, in his epistle to the Romans
16: 1-2: I commend unto you Phoebe our sister which is a deacon of the church
which is at Cenchrea. That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and
that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath
been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

The interpretations of
this passage vary. Those who would deny that there ever were ordained
deaconesses say that the word "deacon" simply means servant, and that anyone
could be a servant, male or female, ordained or not. That interpretation is at
odds with the Church's recognition of Phoebe as the first deaconess. It also
fails to take into account that the word "deacon" derived from the Greek and
meaning "helper" or "'minister" is exactly what the deaconess is supposed to be.

Another interpretation, more realistic in view of the historical facts,
is that this passage "refutes the hypothesis that [deaconesses] were appointed
to administer exclusively to their own sex (Coleman 115). In saying that Phoebe
"hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also," St. Paul is saying that
Phoebe ministered unto him, a male. (Some speculate that Phoebe nursed Paul back
to health from an illness or injury.)

"The office of deaconess was
already a position for women in the service of the Christian community in
apostolic times, but it was an inferior office until the middle of the third
century (House 97). It appears to have developed gradually, representing only a
small expansion of the role of widow. The Apostolic Constitutions required that
a deaconess either be a virgin or a once-married widow, and the Council of
Chalcedon (451 AD) forbade marriage after ordination.

The primary duties
of the deaconess were ministering to women in their houses and assisting at
baptisms. The rationale was that it was not proper for a deacon to go to the
house of heathens to visit a believing woman, and it was not proper for a man to
anoint a woman during baptism and to receive her as she emerged from the water,
because men should not see her unclothed. However, anointing the woman's head,
the immersion, and the pronouncement of the words of baptism were duties
reserved to the bishop or presbyter performing the baptism.

By the
fourth century, the deaconess was assigning places to female visitors in the
church, keeping order, admonishing and praying with latecomers, and assisting
"in a minor way" at the altar (House 98). What the qualification "in a minor
way" is not clear. The required age of sixty was reduced to fifty by the
Didascalia and then to forty by the Council at Chalcedon Other duties added to
her charge were to care for the sick and poor of her own sex; to be present when
bishops, priests, or deacons spoke with women; anti to introduce women
catechumens.

Several reasons are given for the ultimate demise of the
office of deaconess:
The decline of missionary activity and the resultant
decline in the number of adult baptisms with which deaconesses would assist.
The rise of monasticism which, to some extent absorbed and redirected the
activities of deaconesses.
The taking over of care of the sick and the poor
by the Byzantine state.
Abuses on the part of some deaconesses who took
ministerial functions upon themselves, such as reading the Scriptures in public.
Reaction against the prominent ministry of women in certain heretical
groups, particularly the Gnostics and the Montanists.
The office of
deaconess was abolished in the West before the eleventh century, but in the East
it lasted to the end of the Byzantine period in the fifteenth century. It is now
retained only in some Orthodox convents.
The office of deaconess was
conferred with an ordination practically identical to that of the deacon. The
ordination took place in the altar, which was not the case with ordination for
the inferior offices. The bishop laid his hands on the candidate and recited two
prayers, the first of which invoked divine grace. In matters of precedence she
came after the deacon and was robed with the sticharion and the orarion.

After her ordination, the bishop handed her the chalice which she placed
on the altar. She had the right to carry and give Holy Communion to sick women.
She could not take a ceremonial part in any of the sacraments or in other
ceremonies that required the assistance of a deacon. She was addressed as
"reverend, "most honorable" or "most pious." During the time when bishops were
selected from among the married clergy, their wives lived apart from them and
were ordained as deaconesses. They could subsequently remain in society or enter
a convent.

St. Elizabeth, New Martyr and Grand Duchess of Russia,
attempted to restore the ancient office of deaconess in Russia. She was
zealously supported by Metropolitan Vladimir of Moscow but opposed by Bishop
Germogen of Saratov.

Particularly in the Eastern Church, the deaconesses
was an important ceremonial, instructional, and social-care intermediary between
the hierarchy and the women members of the Church. Up to the sacking of
Constantinople, during what is now regarded as the golden age of Orthodoxy,
deaconesses played a vital role in sustaining the faith of the family. By their
own good example, and through teaching, advising, and counseling, they guided
wives and mothers to the Orthodox way of living. Interestingly enough, a
significant movement to restore the order of deaconess has been occurring in the
Eastern Church in recent years in fact. St. Nectarios of Pentapolis ordained
deaconesses for his convent.

An attempt to re-establish the ancient
office or deaconess in Russia is described in Metropolitan Amvrossy’s account of
the life of St. Elizabeth, New Martyr and Grand Duchess of Russia. Her efforts
to restore the office were whole-heartedly and zealously supported by
Metropolitan Vladimir of Moscow. However, Bishop Germogen of Saratov opposed the
idea because of a misunderstanding. He even went so far as to accuse her of
having Protestant tendencies - but he later repented of this accusation.
Nevertheless, the Grand Duchess abandoned her plans and submitted to Church
authority. It is significant that she did not take advantage of her position as
Grand Duchess to achieve her cherished dream.

It is clear from the
remarkable lives of women saints which we reviewed in Part 1, and from the
account of the orders for ordinary women in Part 2, that the role of women in
the first century Church was indeed much more extensive then it is today. In
Part 3 we will consider the historical explanations given for the expansive role
of women and what happened to curtail it."