Common beliefs and practices of the early church

[Bootstrap]

Thanks OJ. So is this something that the Catholics accept too? All I know about it is it's a documentation of early Christian life and teachings.

Catholics and Orthodox accept the Didache as authoritative, as part of the Church Fathers.

Traditionally, Anabaptists and Mennonites do not accept the Didache as authoritative, but we tend to like a lot of what it says, and the writings of the early church help us see how New Testament churches were interpreted by various early groups of Christians. In the last decades, some Anabaptists and Mennonites have come to adopt teachings from the early church in a way that they did not previously.

That's a lot of what Ernie and I are discussing in this thread. Perhaps it would be helpful to start another thread about the Didache if you are not familiar with these writings or the other things we are discussing? I think it would be helpful for this thread to assume some familiarity with the things we are talking about. I assume Ernie started this thread so we would have an appropriate place to discuss these things, and we both know these writings and know something about the context within Anabaptist / Mennonite movements.

[Ernie]

But I don't think it was central to the faith of the New Testament. It's not a major emphasis - and in general, specific rituals and distinctive religious practices beyond things like communion and foot washing are not central to New Testament faith. It's easy to lose our focus on what is central when we put too much emphasis on distinctive rituals and theology - and in general, I think the Church needs to be called back to what is most central.

In this thread, I am not interested in discussing what is central to the faith in the NT, what the major emphases are, what makes it easy to lose focus, etc.

I'm interested in discussing the following.

I don't know that there is much disagreement about what was commonly believed and practiced in the first three centuries based on texts from that era.
I think the disagreements have to do with how much to read into arguments from silence.

1. I see a lot more variety and disagreement in the first three centuries than you do.

Hi Ernie - when you say there isn’t much disagreement about what the early Christians believed and did, do you mean among the early Christians, among scholars who read the writings of the early church today, or among other Christians who study those writings now?

Before assuming that you see a lot more variety and disagreement than what I do, I think it would be helpful to identify what it is that I believe and what it is that you believe.
And as I said earlier, I am not interested in a discussion on what early Christians did not commonly believe and practice. I'm only interested in a discussion on common beliefs and practices.

[Ernie]

Ernie, do yall accept The Didache aka The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations? It's supposed to be from the 1st century in Koine Greek and I wonder if that would be a good addition to your search. There was a class about it but I had a schedule conflict and couldn't go. I've been meaning to find a copy or study guide for it.

I'm not sure who you are referring to by "yall". I am very unfamiliar with the Didache.

[Ernie]

The early church put down their most important beliefs and practices in the Bible. Do we really need to look for something “better” than that?

Not on my account.

[Bootstrap]

Hi Ernie,

To help me understand what you’re actually saying, could you please answer the third question you quoted from me above? For context, I’ve added the paragraph that followed it in the original post below:

Hi Ernie - when you say there isn’t much disagreement about what the early Christians believed and did, do you mean among the early Christians, among scholars who read the writings of the early church today, or among other Christians who study those writings now?

I think I see real differences in all three groups. From what I have read, the early writers didn’t always agree with each other, and modern scholars like Ferguson and Quantz talk a lot about how beliefs and practices varied from place to place. Even readers who mainly follow Bercot sometimes disagree on how to understand or apply what the early church taught. I don't think this is mostly about arguments from silence.

I'm not at all sure that I understand what you are saying or how we would identify the things about which there was not much disagreement, but which are not found in the New Testament. Could you please say more about that too?

I'm not trying to change the subject by bringing up what’s central to the New Testament, but it's the way I evaluate things. When I look at early Christian practices, I keep asking: does this draw us closer to the heart of the New Testament faith? Feel free to skip past that lens if it’s not helpful for your focus in the thread, but if we judge all things through the lens of what Jesus said and did, I think we should judge these writings the same way, it's one of the main ways I evaluate anything. It's going to be hard for me to not think that way.

[Bootstrap]

The early church put down their most important beliefs and practices in the Bible. Do we really need to look for something “better” than that?

Not on my account.

So what is the relationship between these "common beliefs and practices" and the New Testament? And where do I find these "common beliefs and practices" and distinguish them from others? What is missing without them?

[ken_sylvania]

But I don't think it was central to the faith of the New Testament. It's not a major emphasis - and in general, specific rituals and distinctive religious practices beyond things like communion and foot washing are not central to New Testament faith. It's easy to lose our focus on what is central when we put too much emphasis on distinctive rituals and theology - and in general, I think the Church needs to be called back to what is most central.

In this thread, I am not interested in discussing what is central to the faith in the NT, what the major emphases are, what makes it easy to lose focus, etc.

I'm interested in discussing the following.

I don't know that there is much disagreement about what was commonly believed and practiced in the first three centuries based on texts from that era.
I think the disagreements have to do with how much to read into arguments from silence.

1. I see a lot more variety and disagreement in the first three centuries than you do.

Hi Ernie - when you say there isn’t much disagreement about what the early Christians believed and did, do you mean among the early Christians, among scholars who read the writings of the early church today, or among other Christians who study those writings now?

Before assuming that you see a lot more variety and disagreement than what I do, I think it would be helpful to identify what it is that I believe and what it is that you believe.
And as I said earlier, I am not interested in a discussion on what early Christians did not commonly believe and practice. I'm only interested in a discussion on common beliefs and practices.

When you say "common beliefs" are you meaning that in the sense of "not unusual" or in the sense of "believed by all or nearly all early Christians"?
For instance, dairy farming as an occupation is common among the people that I attend church with regularly, but being dairy farmers is not something that our church people have in common.

[Ernie]

When you say "common beliefs" are you meaning that in the sense of "not unusual" or in the sense of "believed by all or nearly all early Christians"?
For instance, dairy farming as an occupation is common among the people that I attend church with regularly, but being dairy farmers is not something that our church people have in common.

Good question.

I think there are probably four different terms/definitions:

1. A common belief - "not unusual" (e.g. The right to individual land ownership in perpetuity is a common belief that can be found in many countries of the world.)

2. Commonly held belief - "widely accepted" (embraced by a large segment of a group or society but may or may not be a majority.)

3. Common belief - "belief held by the majority of people in a community; generally believed; commonly accepted" (The common belief at Pine Meadows Church is that...)

4. Beliefs held in common - "beliefs held by all parties/participants" (e.g. Pine Meadows Church and Pine Forest Church hold the following beliefs in common.)

I was thinking of definitions one and two when I started this thread, but I am fine with identifying beliefs that fit definition three and four as well.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

There definitely was enough disagreement and variety among the early church to dispel the idea that the things we read from the writers of that period were held in common among the whole church worldwide. Certainly there is significant evidence that things like the headcovering and enemy love were taken for granted for a while.

But even before Constantine, there are records of Christians in the Empirial military. There are writings that address this, enough to conclude that non-participation in the military was taught by prominent writers, but not necessarily taught in the local churches as much as we'd like to believe.
Similarly, the proper application of the headcovering wasn't agreed upon. Of particular debate was whether women veiled, or whether only married women (wives) veiled.

Baptism is similar. There are very early accounts of infant baptism, but some who wrote about it didn't write as if to give approval, or to outright ban it. So there is evidence there was not just one practice of baptism believed in common by all the churches to be the right way. Modes of baptism was a similar matter.

Prophecy was another issue with variety. Read up on the Monatists. They were essentially 2nd/3rd-Century Charismatics. They were "out there" enough that they were viewed as outsiders by many in the church, but the church wasn't really keen on labeling every new movement as a heretical cult, so they never were officially labeled that way. To this day, scholars ponder whether they were a cult following a charismatic leader or a sect of Christians that listened to the Spirit more than the rest of the church.

Keep in mind that, if we have a writing from an early church father addressing a topic, that doesn't mean his POV was commonly held by the whole church. In fact, it is somewhat likely that he was addressing the topic BECAUSE it was something the church didn't have unity on.

[Soloist]

Keep in mind that, if we have a writing from an early church father addressing a topic, that doesn't mean his POV was commonly held by the whole church. In fact, it is somewhat likely that he was addressing the topic BECAUSE it was something the church didn't have unity on.

It reminds me very much of someone here who recently was complaining about someone who claimed to speak for all the Amish/Mennonites.

some of the early writers speak about reverence for the bishop, and I feel based on scripture they might go overboard which leads to some of the heresy later. although I don’t know if people would agree, I have long felt that when someone is preaching, they tend to be a little stronger than they actually mean.
that could be what’s actually going on…