Preservation
Thursday, 30 October 2008
Last night in Ancient Church, we covered some more background on the Nicene Council. I think that the circumstances surrounding the development of the Nicene Creed and the very important doctrine that it contains (that the Son is consubstantial with the Father) is one of history’s examples of the ways in which God will preserve His Church.
The Nicene Council met in 325, but it wouldn’t be until 381, at the Council of Constantinople, that resistance to the creed would effectively end and the Church would move on to different Christological heresies. For the greater part of a century, the Church found herself practically consumed by a heresy that threatened the foundational truths of Christianity. What’s more, the heretics were often the ones in power, enjoying the favour of the Arian emperor, Constantius. At one point, Jerome described the situation by saying that “the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian”.
Athanasius, one of the heroes of the day, was himself an unpopular figure — his personality was harsh, and he made political enemies easily. At TMC, in our Church History class, Professor Owen pointed out that had Athanasius been a bit more diplomatic, he would have been able to win over the semi-Arians who held to that position out of their dislike for Athanasius. But despite his flaws, Athanasius was a strong voice for orthodoxy.
The heavy involvement of the Roman emperors, too, was unideal. Things aren’t exactly in a good place when the Church has an untrained emperor taking sides in a theological issue.
Nonetheless, despite the messiness of the circumstances and the flaws of the individuals involved, orthodoxy prevailed.
I love the way the Heidelberg Catechism defines Providence:
Question 27: What dost thou mean by the providence of God?
Answer. The almighty and everywhere present power of God; whereby, as it were by his hand, he upholds and governs heaven, earth, and all creatures; so that herbs and grass, rain and drought, fruitful and barren years, meat and drink, health and sickness, riches and poverty, yea, and all things come, not by chance, but by his fatherly hand.
Some believe that with the passing years, the Church will only grow in influence and size, while others believe that by the time of the Second Coming there will only be a remnant left. Regardless, we may know that God, as the One Who “upholds and governs heaven, earth, and all creatures”, will be faithful in preserving His Church to the end.
Entry Filed under: History, Musings. Tags: providence.
8 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
Akira | Thursday, 30 October 2008 at 20:03
That’s not the Ancient Church.
That’s the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church. The same church since Pentecost, and today, and tomorrow.
2.
J. Petrik | Thursday, 30 October 2008 at 20:09
I think you misunderstand. “Ancient Church” is the name of the course — it is referring to the time period. The name is not meant to distinguish that part of the church from another part of the church as though they are separate entities.
And the Church is much older than Pentecost, but otherwise I do agree.
3.
Akira | Friday, 31 October 2008 at 1:03
So you mean “Relativity Ancient Church” or “The Church when it was Ancienter than Today”?
All Orthodox Church’s teach that “Orthodoxy dates from the establishment of the Church on the Glorious Day of the Pentecost, 33 A.D., fifty days after the Lord’s Resurrection.”
From random Orthodox Christian sites:
“Pentecost commemorates the day when the Orthodox Church was established in 33 AD. ”
“The Orthodox Church calls itself simply “the Church”, similarly as Greeks in old times used the word “Christian” when speaking about the Orthodox. This is because the Eastern Orthodox Church is naturally the community, i.e. the eccliesy, which has its roots in Jerusalem, on the day of Pentecost at the descent of the Holy Spirit. This community remained unchanged during the whole history at many places mentioned in the New Testament. … according to its substance and spirit, the Church in the 20th century is the same as it was from the very beginning.
The coming of Isuus Khristos, “when the time came about”, was an event linked with a certain date from which we start counting our times. The descent of the Holy Spirit, “the gift promised by the Father”, was also an event connected with a particular date, a unique historical event. For the Church it meant the descent of “the power from above” and “the Spirit of truth” (Lk 24:49 and Jn 16:13). Holding on to this we believe that in the acts of both the Church and the communities created later according to their faith, there dwells the mercy of the Holy Spirit. “However, when the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth,” such was the promise of Khristos (Jn 16, 13). After fulfillment of this promise, the apostle names “the Church of the living God” as “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (Tm 3, 15). … The Orthodox Church in the whole world is one, for it has a uniform teaching. It is though divided according to areas, similarly as nations which form individual states.”
John 16:13: “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.”
I’m not sure how you can say that the Church preceded Pentecost, unless perhaps you are thinking of the temporal ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, or the work of The Great Cloud of Witnesses, as “the Church.” If so, then this is clearly not The Church on Earth, as can be seem from the words of Our Lord and Saviour:
“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I WILL build My Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” [Matthew 16:18]
God bless you.
4.
Akira | Friday, 31 October 2008 at 1:18
Sorry to colonize your site here, but to clarify:
The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church is:
(a) The Body of Christ
(b) The community of believers and followers of Jesus Christ since the point in time at which that community has been guided by The Holy Spirit, as had been promised by Our Lord prior to his Crucifixion and Resurrection; “that point in time” meaning Pentecost
(c) The same yesterday, today and tomorrow, just as Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow
(d) One, as Jesus Christ himself is One and Indivisible
(e) Holy; sacramental; as opposed to being merely some sort of club for social networking, or activism, or community organizing, or debating, or …. whatever
(f) Catholic; universal; The Church for all of humanity in all places at all times, and also with each “church” complete in itself as the nexus between tim and eternity, between Heaven and Earth.
(g) Apostolic; in continuity — both temporally and in terms of teachings and tradition — with the Apostles, who themselves were guided by Our Lord and Saviour, and who were in continuity with the traditions and teachings of the Jewish people prior to the temporal ministry of Jesus Christ
(h) Orthodox; of correct teachings, correct worship, correct glorification
5.
J. Petrik | Friday, 31 October 2008 at 1:29
“So you mean “Relativity Ancient Church” or “The Church when it was Ancienter than Today”?”"
I’m referring to a time period. The course covers the patristic era. Next semester, I will take a course on the Medieval and Reformed Church. Eventually, I will take a course on the Modern Church. These are not four different churches, but one church in different times. It’s a history course. I may as well have said that I am taking a course in the history of the Church in the period from the first century to roughly the early medieval period — but it’s quicker just to call it “Ancient Church”.
The Church is the body of believers through all time. Adam was a member of the Church as he believed in the promise of the Saviour to come. Pentecost saw the creation of a new community — one that transcended the boundaries of the Old Covenant — but the body of believers have always been the Church.
I believe, though, that this view of the doctrine of the Church is a peculiarity of those holding to a Reformed confession of Christianity (i.e., to those holding to the 3 Forms of Unity, Westminster Standards, or London Baptist Confession).
And no worries about “colonizing my site”. A friend of mine is also Orthodox, but I did not realise the Orthodox understanding of the Church is that she is distinct from Israel — I believe otherwise, that she is the fulfilment, the expansion of Israel. So your comments have been enlightening.
6.
Akira | Friday, 31 October 2008 at 1:55
Hi again,
I just put together the following post in response to some of your statements here:
http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/the-orthodox-church-is/
Please note there are some pdf files there — excerpts from a Church history, and a translation of The New Testament
7.
Akira | Friday, 31 October 2008 at 2:22
Hi,
“Relativity Ancient Church” & “The Church when it was Ancienter than Today” was joking.
Are you also an insomniac? or in a distant time zone …?
Terms like “Medieval Church”, “Reformed Church” and “Modern Church” are, I believe Western [i.e. Papist and Crypto-Papist] terms. I’m quite sure that an Orthodox historian would be careful to say “The Xhurch in the Medieval/Modern Era” etc. so as to be caeful not to give the impression that there can be more than One Church.
Similarly, the term “Reformed Church” would have normally have no place in an Orthodox Christian vocabulary. “Refroms” would refer only to particular habits or administrative adjustments, but would/should not be applied to descriptions/definitions of the Church as a whole.
This might seem irrelevant, but certainly words have meanings, and reflect particular mindsets.
Lex orandi, Lex credendi
8.
J. Petrik | Friday, 31 October 2008 at 10:35
““Relativity Ancient Church” & “The Church when it was Ancienter than Today” was joking.”
Sorry — I don’t do well with textual humour when I’m tired.
“Are you also an insomniac? or in a distant time zone …?”
I’m in California (see my “About” note), and so it was late, but not *that* late.
“Terms like “Medieval Church”, “Reformed Church” and “Modern Church” are, I believe Western [i.e. Papist and Crypto-Papist] terms. I’m quite sure that an Orthodox historian would be careful to say “The Xhurch in the Medieval/Modern Era” etc. so as to be caeful not to give the impression that there can be more than One Church.”
We confess “one holy, catholic, and apostolic church” (as per the Nicene Creed), and so it’s assumed that we are speaking of the same church in all eras. Your comment surprised me because I did not think it possible to have the implication of multiple churches that way.
“Similarly, the term “Reformed Church” would have normally have no place in an Orthodox Christian vocabulary. “Refroms” would refer only to particular habits or administrative adjustments, but would/should not be applied to descriptions/definitions of the Church as a whole.”
We use Reformed because we are born directly of the Protestant Reformation. More generally, we refer to Lutherans and confessional Calvinists as “Reformation Christians”.
“This might seem irrelevant, but certainly words have meanings, and reflect particular mindsets.”
Indeed.
Thank you for the link to your post, by the way. I will bookmark it for further reference, as I simply don’t have the time to commit to such an in-depth study right now. But I always appreciate the opportunity to learn more about Orthodox Christianity.