Status Updates From Teologia Histórica

Tertullian endorsed the tradition handed down from apostles on interpreting Scripture and that it was clear. It is a theology from above. The Gnostics were relying on from below. Modern examples are scientology, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses. There is no secret source of knowledge for us to find. The ecumenical creeds were a way of clarifying what we believe. A creed is universal.

The order in which books are arranged is another question. The gospels are first, followed by Acts, but the eastern church wanted Paul's letters after the others. Both agree on Revelation last. Those written by named Apostles and those with clear authority accepted by consensus seem to be the primary factor. There was a battle between the outward tradition handed down by patristics versus Gnostic hidden knowledge.

Canon means a fixed reference point. The OT was already fixed as the Scrpture read in Jesus's day. From early on 4 Gospels, Acts (Luke Part 2), Paul's letters, and Revelations were accepted. Coming from the apostles made it authoritative. Athanasius came up with 27 books, but the West hesitated with Hebrews and the East with Revelation. The Didache was thought to be helpful but not authoritative.

On Christianity and the classical culture, writers pulled rhetoric and grammar (literature and poetry) in crafting Christian literature. Pre-Constantine, the culture was oppressive. Constantine made Rome the servant of the Gospel and allowed Christians pulled in what seems right and serves the faith. It is like the Israelite using Egyptian treasure to build the Tabernacle to worship God.

His synthesized Christian thought to promote the doctrines of Trinity, church and grace, refute Gnosticism and Pelagianism, and present Christianity systematically. He promoted keeping the good from culture and rejecting the useless or burdensome. Several of his books are widely read today.

Augustin picked up Romans 13:14, which says to clothe yourself with Christ (like yesterday's Gospel where the uninvited guest was not properly robed). He was already fed up with paganism, and this was the sign from God that pushed him into certainty. He returned from Milan to Africa for health reasons. He was made bishop of Hippp. His writings made him like a second founder of the Christian faith.

Augustine of Hippo is a father I need to read Confessions, City of God, and On Christian doctrine plus finish Athanasius' On the Incarnation. He is one of Christianity's most influential writers. He is a Berber from Algeria (content of character, not color). He was a bit of a bad boy and his mother Monica prayed for him. He heard children singing in Latin, "Take up and read." The nearest thing was Roman's 13:14.

Athanasius was from Alexandria. He was outspoken and excommunicated a lot. He battled Arianism, which rejected the divinity of Christ. We can't worship Christ if he is not fully divine. It would be idolatry. He wrote "On the Incarnation" but not the long creed named for him.

Tortellini was the late second century from Carthage. He converted in his thirties. He was no fan of philosophy and rejected blending Platonic thinking because of the sufficiency of scripture. He had a major influence on the Latin (western) church. Unlike the heretic Marcion, he saw unity in OT and emerging NT. He laid the foundation for the doctrine of the Trinity.

Origen was the early third century from Alexandria. His prolific writing meant that some things were wrong (universal restoration, including Satan). He saw Christ as having lesser divinity than the father. He took a multilayered reading of the Bible. He wrote "First Principles" (systematic theology) and ransom theory of atonement. He was tortured on the rack for not recanting his faith, and it broke his health.

Irenaeus of Lyons was from Smyrna, settled in Rome, and was Bishop of Lyons. He was also in the second century. Because Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna when he was young, Irenaeus heard him preach, and Polycarp was disciple of John the Gospel writer. He wrote a lot of material, and he is best known for speaking against the heresy of Gnosticism. He developed the idea of salvation and tradition handed from early church.

He originally followed the order of Mithras and believed that deception is perversion of the real and true and Eucharist as transmutation. His trial record is preserved. He was accused of being an atheist for rejecting Ronan gods and emperor as god. He and six friends were martyred. The eastern church is drawn to his philosophy.

There are so many church fathers to choose, and I think he focused on those who played a role in developing theology for good or otherwise. Justin Martyr was 2nd century pagan Platonist and he wore the philosopher garb, even after conversion. He believed seeds of truth were present in pagan writings. He is known for "First Apology" and outlining a clear model of worship.

From 313 to 451, theology rose to the surface to find consensus in Christian doctrine. As the church in Rome gained more power, the church in Constantinople resisted. Throughout the empire, there were more seats of influence: Alexandria, Antioch (Syria), a couple of places in North Africa. Quote from Denman, “Controversy brings clarity.” He also recommends the Didache (1st century church practices).

Diocletian stepped down in 305 and retired to Croatia (his homeland). The persecution ended in 311, just two years before Constantine became emperor. We know the story about Constantine’s conversion as well as his mother’s pilgrimage to identify holy sites in Judea. The church went from persecution to being accepted and in 321 he declared Sundays as public holidays. I wonder what the work week was like before that.

Strength in numbers cause sporadic persecution, but it wasn't until the third century that major persecution happened (Edict of Decius in June 250). All had to sacrifice to Roman gods and the emperor. Thousands of Christians were persecuted. It ended when Emperor Decius was killed. The worst was under Diocletian: they destroyed churches, burned books, and were enslaved.

The second century was apologetics: a reasoned defense of faith to counter the Greek philosophers. Pulling away from Judaism stripped off some protection. Apologetics helped explain Christianity but did not deter persecution. Theology did not emerge until persecution ended. In the first century, Christianity spread throughout the empire with a foothold of Rome. It was not legally recognized but not forbidden.

Four difficulties in studying the patrists are: some issues important in their time do not interest us; philosophical ideas of the day (Platonism) seem confusing; in this age of flux there was great doctrinal diversity (like today); the divide between West (Latin speakers) and East (Greek speakers) causes confusion. First century issues were sorting out Jewish and Christian practices.

Unfortunately, modern people are not equipped to read the writing of early theologians to get a correct understanding. They struggle with terms like patristic. Most churches see this time as a landmark in the development of doctrine. Lancelot Andrew's "two testaments, three creeds, four gospels, five centuries of church history." I love his definitions as a geometry teacher.

Love connects to suffering because we wonder if God can fully love if he does not empathize with suffering. Jesus wept, so I say yes, but modern theologians still discuss this. Historical theology makes us aware of arguments and heresies of the past, so we don't repeat the errors of the past. Historical theology informs systemic theology. Today has a resurgence in reading Chiristian classics which gives us new eyes.

It helps us identify what’s already been discussed, the strenghts and weaknesses of how it was approached, and know the landmarks of Christian thought. It also serves to correct our thinking. We can learn why certain doctrines became important when they did and understand how theology adapted to a particular time. He illustrates the idea of God not suffering came from Greek ideas about perfection and God.

Another question is whether God can suffer and that is an interesting question in light of Jesus suffering on the cross. The issue is the spirit of the study: if the sole purpose is looking for error, then that is not a posture of humility. Looking for ideas (spirit of the age) is very helpful because they yield fruit. Nothing is new under the season and the minds of the past wrestle with the questions we ask.

They examined the work of early patristic writers as well as scholars in the Middle Ages. The Enlightenment triggered another examination because they believed dogma that developed because of the culture of those eras may be incorrect (which is why we have chaos today). They reject essentials of Christian belief as dogma--the incarnation for example--because they believe it came from Greek philosophy.

Historical theology also informs systematic theology because it addresses when and why theological doctrine settled. When these issues crop up now, it is because we do not realize the issue has already been decided. It also reveals how God’s saving work appeared in each age which is encouraging. The Reformation triggered the emergence of historical theology because people were trying to support their ideas.

Church history and historical theology overlap because church history naturally includes the big theological debates of the day. To understand historical theology one must understand what was happening in the church and the culture at the time. For example, the medieval church had access to the Latin Vulgate, not the original Greek manuscripts. Publishing the NT in Greek was a spark to the Reformation.

The Spanish intermarried with the natives a lot which led to mixing of relgious and cultural practices. Finally, the efforts of the USSR and Cuba to foment a color revolution and import Marxism into Latin American influenced liberation theology. In the US, secular culture has an influence: liberalism and conservatism affecting denominations differently, depending upon which political movement aligns the most.

Historical theology draws from church history and systematic theology. It focuses on the historical situation that lead to theology and links context to the topic. For example, the social-economic situation in Latin America drove liberation theology. I could go on: the Spanish Catholic practices (not understanding the mass) and the culture of getting away with what you can in the justice system added to the pressure.

Historical theology covers the development of Christian theology based on the spirit of the age and the historical context. Something totally new for me is that one key factor in the Reformation may be when Erasmus (15th century) published the first Greek copy of the New Testament. Some flaws in understanding came from St. Jerome’s Latin translation. The west lacked access to the original Greek.

Events that are vital to understanding church history don’t always translate to theology and vice versa. It is interested in how the church developed throughout the ages: its institutional elements and the movements. It also looks at the interplay between Christianity and the culture.