Between 1956 and 1968, Television aired a program called "To Tell the Truth" The show consisted of 4 celebrity panelists asking questions of three contestant's to determine their identity. One of the contestants usually had an unusual occupation or had done something noteworthy, and it is this person that the panel must attempt to identify. Each of the three contestants claimed to be this person After votes were cast host Gary Moore and later Bill Cullen would ask "Will the real [person's name], please stand up?".
I sometimes ask that question as I listen to others share their views about Christ or even as I read the scriptures for myself. "Will the real Jesus please stand up".The modernist view of Jesus presents a CEO type of Jesus. He is linear, propositional, , Driven by a purpose, moral, and a Republican. The Jesus Seminar presents Him as a wayfaring rabbi who doesn't know He's divine. The post Modern view of Jesus is an historical person who what little they know of Him, they like, who makes no demands on any one except to love. William P. Young in his book "The Shack" pictures God as a chubby black woman named "Papa" and Jesus a jean wearing, ordinary guy who likes to work in his shop.
When it comes to theology, there are differing schools of thought too. Are we all elected and God in total control as the Reformed thinkers would have us believe or do we have some say in our salvation. Then there is the issue of Eschatology (the study of end times things). Some are Pre-mil, Pre-trib and dispensational (That means there is a literal 1,000 year of rule of Christ on the earth and Jesus will return at the end of the tribulation with the saints he took up at the beginning of the 7 years of tribulation to rule and reign for 1,000 years), others believe Christians go though the Tribulation and then Jesus comes back to set up his 1,000 rule upon the earth; then there are those who are Amillinial which means there is no literal 1,000 years where christ reigns upon the earth.
It's all pretty heady stuff that theologs and thinkers like to wrap their brains around. Lately, though rather than enter the endless debate, I have found myself trying to understand what was in the mind of the writers of the gospels and epistles when they wrote. To me, If I could figure out their intent, then the theological/escatalogical questions and all biblical questions really coulc be answered.
For instance, In the issue of Eschatology, the Amillinial position has gained ground in recent years. People like Hank Haanagraf of "The Bible Answer Man" is Amil. But as I study the church history, that position was introduced in the 6th century by Augustine. But those who studied under John the revelator (he was the one who lived the longest of the apostles) all believed in a literal 1,000 reign of Christ on the earth. To me, then, a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ upon the earth makes the most sense because apparently that is what was in the mind of John when he wrote Revelation!
So my quest is this: to not have my theology, image of Jesus, or my eschatology shaped by my world view, but to have my worldview shaped by the scriptures and the original writers intent. I think we would all do well to do the same. This April I am undertaking an independent study with Dr. Wayne House on early church history. Presently, I am studying the patristic period to Nicea. Then this summer, I will be taking a class on "The Historical Jesus". I'll keep you all posted on what I learn.
21 comments:
Augustine overlapped the 4th and 5th century.
I myself am trying to get to a point to be more Christ-like...a smooth mocha blend of Part Luther , Part Erasmus , part Calvin.
Frank
Steve,
I love Church History. What has become apparent to me in all my years as a christian , 20 , is that there has been alot of cultural blending with the Gospel and therefore creating a hybrid that lasts for a time.
The Gnostics who believed that matter was evil and the spirit good, denied that Jesus came in the Flesh.
Men such as Origen , Augustine and Aquinas blended the philosohies of Plato and Aristotle in their cosmology.
The blend of Philosophy and Christianity is perilous although there are still many Christians, most notably the Biola School, who are trying to get both systems to work. How does one get Reason, that which is detached and objective to coincide with Revelation which is committed and subjective?
If we look at the " Emergent" Church, they are syncretising the ideas of Bhuddism, Catholicism, Universalism with Post Modern sensibilities.
I look forward to more of your Glogs
Frank Ordaz
Frank
You made it! Awesome! Great thoughts.
Steve
Somebody must not have been playing nice earlier today, huh?
Steve,
I'm looking forward to your insights on the historical Jesus.
Kevin
Some knucklehead spammed us. Posted over and over again a stupid business opportunity. sheeeesh!
Steveo -
No disrepect intended, but I'm not getting it. How is what you're proposing here any different than what people have been trying to do for 2thousand years and is the basis of all those debates you're not going to participate in?
Isn't trying to figure out what the orginial authors thought at the time the whole foundation of those debates?
Hope that came out right cause it's an honest question. Not a slam.
Laura
P.S. you can get rid of all those "this comment deleted" messages if you sign in to your blog and click again on all the little trash can icons. You'll get an option to delete the comments "forever". say yes. Viola!
Take Care,
L
L-dawg
It has become apparent to me that a much of the original authors inspired intent may have been lost thru the lens of culture. I think much of recent interpretation of scripture has been thru the lens of modernism. Presently it is being filtered through the world view of post-post modernism. Fundamentalists Evangelicals, Emergent or Emerging all bring their spin from their world view to the scriptures.
For instance, not too long ago, some denominations felt that going to a movie or dancing was a sin. Today, many feel that women should hve head coverings in church and others that women are to have no leadership roles.
So who is right? The authors of the bible were influenced by their culture, but what was their intent? What is cultural and what is God's intent?
I may be on a wild goose chase but I am driven to find the answer
Thanks for the tip on the delete button
my husband was raised in canada so they are used to have a women in office, the queen of England...
we find it funny because we have not had one. or i am not really sure why. i know the bible does state that one scripture and i was taught that way like 25 yrs ago. also when growing up i knew as a catholic from my dad, he taught me about the man who was going to get shot in the head and recovery quickly and about the mark of the beast, 666 and being beheaded and all. then when i was in my 20's in 1980s was taught differently from two different churches (both were non demoninational just different beliefs on some issues) such as about the trumpet and the rapture happening that part was the same. one was about dying and going to sleep until the trumpet was blown. the other was about being absent from the body was being present with the Lord, and then also about Lazarus being in abraham;s bossom and all seeing the rich guy and wanting water dipped on his toungue and it was said to go warn his family, and the response was they would still not listen. i guess to me either way is good as long as i go to be with Christ. i picture the first senario going into to sleep and then waking up like surgery and not remembering a thing. the other seems more pleasing closing eyes to this life and entering into eternal life immediately.
what is funny about the rapture and tribulation period is that there are so many different believes and debates. i know that my desire is Jesus above all.
i was taught about rapture, than the tribulation and than the 1000 year rein with Christ my mind thinks too much however... because after the `1000 years and all how can people be so dumb and mislead after having Christ right there right in front of us.
i don't get it seriously but perhaps is it because they have not been changed yet into heavenly bodies...that is a big question to me...not sure...what is interesting i read some books awhile back from chuck smith sr. what is the world coming to. and also hal lindsey the promise, and so forth and did a study on the book of revelation twice, at church place of worship (whatever you want to call it hehe) both were similar teachings...because one was with chuck sr, at costa mesa, and the other was at downey calvary, pastor jeff johnson.
however i have also attended some prophecy semiars at the convetion center as well some of the pastors and authors are intense and talk really fast, and some where just where my brain freezed. well, there is much there, and much,,..where i thought of an army a spiritual warfare, and the battle against the enemy...I still believe the enemy is working hard here and now because he is plaging minds of many. i felt sad yesterday because my son said mom, i prayed yesterday morning (he is 19 yrs old) and i said that is wonderful news to hear. he said well it was a terrrible day. as if he was blaming God or something for such a bad day. it made me think of when raul ries calls God is not or genie or butler in heaven. my son i went on to say God has some plans for your life, he said mom, in a firm voice i am not going to be a pastor or preacher,. i responded trying to be loving and calm as i could say i did not expect that but i know God can use you from all you have been through to help others that would be nice. he got all uncomfortable and immediately had to hang up.
He is so resistant and yet knows the right thing he was raised in God, and knows the scripture but it is just not cool, and it is cooler in his book to not be involved. i think he thinks i am like the flaunders on the simpsons but far from it. i fall short everyday just like everyone else.
i just continue to pray for him , please pray too for joseph
if anyone else needs pray let me know i will pray too.
he is 19 and is going to fire school and emt. pray he does not make and more decisions that would cause him to not get in.
thank you have a great day to all
linda
please use delete (if you can delete one of my double posts)
lbh
Got it!
Hi Steve - I'm very interested in what you're writing about and I think that one can find a consistent thread doctrinally, that agrees with and follows scripture, through the maze of church history.
I would say that one is on the right track by asking what the original intent of the writers was, however there is a bit more to consider when attempting to exegete the scripture passages written by any given writer. For example; what was their historical and cultural situation at the time of the writing? Who exactly was their intended audience? What litarary genre were they using to express themselves? There is much more.
Sadly, in our instant gratification culture the majority of Christians including many "scholars" don't think to take the time to study and find these things out before coming to a conclusion (by saying this I'm not including you).
I shall watch your blog with interest on this matter. BTW, who are those who studied under John that view the 1000 years as literal? I'd like to check them out.
Thanks and God bless!
Dave
Steve-O Dewd have you read "the life and times of Jesus the Messiah"? OOOOOH and Ray Vander Laan has a video series called "That the world may know" that walks you through the actual areas and gives you an overview of the culture at the times of the writings. VERY eye opening.
Blessings bro, Praying the Lord will finish His walk with you along this path you two have started together
Eric
Yes I have read "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah". It's a classic work by Edersheim. It is very helpful. Brings in the culture Jesus lived. Thanks for the prayers. Praying for you too
Tell Dr. House I say HELLO!!!! He is a very good friend of mine.
Richard Abanes
Steve,
I'm still waiting for you to tell me who those are who studied under the Apostle John that view the 1000 years as literal? I'd really like to check them out.
God bless!
Dave
Hi Dave!
Polycarp of Smyrna was a disciple of John as was Papias. Hope that helps
BTW where did you her Dr. Azurdia? I love that guy!
Brother Dave
Here is some more information about chilism and the early church fathers. This is just a quick cut and paste job--
The premillennial view was the first view of the Church:
The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius; while Caius, Origen, Dionysius the Great, Eusebius (as afterwards Jerome and Augustine) opposed it. . . . It distinguishes, moreover, two resurrections, one before and another after the millennium, and makes the millennial reign of Christ only a prelude to his eternal reign in heaven, from which it is separated by a short interregnum of Satan. The millennium is expected to come not as the legitimate result of a historical process but as a sudden supernatural revelation. The advocates of this theory appeal to the certain promises of the Lord, but particularly to the hieroglyphic passage of the Apocalypse, which teaches a millennial reign of Christ upon this earth after the first resurrection and before the creation of the new heavens and the new earth. In connection with this the general expectation prevailed that the return of the Lord was near, though uncertain and unascertainable as to its day and hour, so that believers may be always ready for it. This hope, through the whole age of persecution, was a copious fountain of encouragement and comfort under the pains of that martyrdom which sowed in blood the seed of a bountiful harvest for the church.1
The most explicit reference in Scripture to the thousand-year millennial reign of Christ is found in Revelation 20+. It is a significant fact that the early adherents of premillennialism (or chiliasm, as it was first called), either had direct contact with John, the longest living apostle, or with his most famous disciple Polycarp. . . . Papias (ca. 60-130), one of the earliest premillennialists, has been called by some the “father of millenarianism.” Irenaeus affirmed that Papias was “the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp.” Papias furnished the earliest extra-biblical witness to the millennial doctrine taught by the Apocalypse.2
The premillennial fathers of the ante-Nicene age included church leaders who were contemporary with and in some cases instructed by the apostles and those who were in turn their disciples . . . In this group are: Clement (fl. ca. 90-100), bishop of Rome; Papias (ca. 60-ca. 130/155), bishop of Hierapolis; Polycarp (ca. 70-155/160), bishop of Smyrna; and Ignatius (d. ca. 98/117), bishop of Antioch. . . . Premillennialists of the second century included the apologist Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165); the polemicists Irenaeus (ca. 120-ca. 202), bishop of Lyons, and his disciple Hippolytus (d. ca. 236), presbyter and teacher in Rome; and from the African school, Tertullian (150-225), apologist, moralist, and theologian.3
Dr. Whitby (Treatise on Tradition) gives us the following often-quoted statement: “The doctrine of the Millennium, or the reign of the saints on earth for a thousand years, is now rejected by all Roman Catholics, and by the greatest part of Protestants; and yet it passed among the best Christians, for two hundred and fifty years, for a tradition apostolical; and, as such, is delivered by many Fathers of the second and third century, who speak of it as the tradition of our Lord and His apostles, and of all the ancients who lived before them; who tell us the very words in which it was delivered, the Scriptures which were then so interpreted; and say that it was held by all Christians that were exactly orthodox. It was received not only in the Eastern parts of the Church, by Papias (in Phrygia), Justin (in Palestine), but by Irenaeus (in Gaul), Nepos (in Egypt), Apollinaris, Methodius (in the West and South), Cyprian, Victorinus (in Germany), by Tertullian (in Africa), Lactantius (in Italy), and Severus, and by the Council of Nice” (about A.D. 323).4
George E. Ladd (Crucial Questions About The Kingdom of God [Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1952] 23) forcefully concludes, “With one exception [Caius] there is no Church Father before Origen who opposed the millenarian interpretation, and there is no one before Augustine whose extant writings offer a different interpretation of Rev. 20:1-15+ than that of a future earthly kingdom consonant with the natural interpretation of language.”5
All three of these fathers of the Western church, Cyprian, Hippolytus, and Victorinus, subscribed to the millenarian doctrine.6
Among those who can be cited [in support of chiliasm in the third century] are Cyprian (200-258), Commodian (200-270), Nepos (230-280), Coracion (230-280), Victorinus (240-303), Methodius (250-311), and Lactantius (240-330).7
Thanks Steve! That gives me something to chew on for a bit. Also, I went to a Reformation Society meeting in a little town near Portland a couple months ago and Dr. Azurdia was the speaker. He was awesome!
Thanks again!
Dave
Hi Dave
Always good when a longtime friend stops by! Art is awesome. I took a class from him a few months ago and am taking one from him at Western Seminary next month. He is becoming a good friend. I am also hosting a class on exegisis here in June for CC pastors. Art is going to teach that for me. Hope you continue to read and post here. See you soon (I hope)
Post a Comment