Common beliefs and practices of the early church

[Bootstrap]

are you saying Christians should be adopting these practices and beliefs in addition to what we find in the New Testament, or simply that reading these writings shines light on the practices of the early church that can help us understand the New Testament better? I agree with the second, I disagree with the first.

Regarding the first... If a belief or practice has value in helping a person spiritually, I think it is good for Christians to adopt such beliefs and practices, no matter what era the belief/practice/value was first introduced.

Regarding the second... "yes, I agree with you"

Gotcha - in that case, I think we simply agree. I was confused earlier. Thanks for the clarification.

[JohnH]

Hmm...

What tine line are we restricting "early church" to?

There were also a few factions even by the year 2000. Alexandrian, Roman and so forth.

[MattY]

1. It seems fairly clear that it was common practice to meet on the first day of the week, that is, Sunday, for church services. This is because Jesus rose on the first day of the week, and they quickly began to call it the "Lord's Day."

2. They initially had a plurality of elders, rather than being led by one single bishop. This is confirmed both by NT study (there is no difference between elders and overseers; they were two terms for the same office), and by early church writings such as the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, and 1 Clement. The idea that you must a single person "in charge", as I've heard in some Anabaptist circles, was absent. But this changed during the struggles with heretics in the second century; they turned to key leaders to enforce order and keep heretics in check. By the middle of the second century, many churches had a single bishop in charge; this can be seen in the writings of Ignatius, who insists on obedience to a single bishop in his letters, and he is sometimes given credit/blame for the change. By the end of the second century, the monoepiscopate was firmly entrenched.

Jerome even acknowledges this in his writings in the early 5th century:
The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. . . Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord (Comm. Tit. 1.7).

3. The church leaders were elected by the church, or chosen by other reputable men and confirmed by the whole congregation; not by lot, nor by simple appointment by a single or central authority. This can be seen in the Didache, in 1 Clement, and in Hippolytus.

4. They seem to have observed the Lord's Supper weekly, based on the Didache, Justin Martyr, etc.

5. They were not opposed to art, frescoes, mosaics, etc.; they painted depictions of many biblical scenes, including some of Christ himself. There is no evidence they prayed to or venerated their art though; quite to the contrary, in fact.

[ohio jones]

The early church decided to write down the beliefs and practices they thought were important and that's what ended up being the New Testament.

More precisely, the apostles and their associates wrote them down and the early church confirmed those writings as the New Testament canon.

Hmm...

What tine line are we restricting "early church" to?

There were also a few factions even by the year 2000. Alexandrian, Roman and so forth.

That seems a little late to be early. 200 maybe?

[JohnH]

What tine line are we restricting "early church" to?

There were also a few factions even by the year 2000. Alexandrian, Roman and so forth.

That seems a little late to be early. 200 maybe?
[/quote]

Good point, I undercounted the number of factions.

[JohnL]

Sure. This thread can be used to identify beliefs and practices that were common all around the Mediterranean, as well as ones that were more localized.
I'm not aware that these practices had religious significance in the early church, but if they did, that could be discussed in this thread.

I think you made a really important distinction Ernie. Beliefs (who is Jesus and what did he do?) and practices in their daily worship of Jesus. It makes it easier for me to try to sum up the absolutely essential beliefs held by the earliest Christians and separate it away from what they did as a religious practice (modes of baptism, music, order of service, etc).

[Ernie]

1. It seems fairly clear that it was common practice to meet on the first day of the week, that is, Sunday, for church services. This is because Jesus rose on the first day of the week, and they quickly began to call it the "Lord's Day."

2. They initially had a plurality of elders, rather than being led by one single bishop. This is confirmed both by NT study (there is no difference between elders and overseers; they were two terms for the same office), and by early church writings such as the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, and 1 Clement. The idea that you must a single person "in charge", as I've heard in some Anabaptist circles, was absent. But this changed during the struggles with heretics in the second century; they turned to key leaders to enforce order and keep heretics in check. By the middle of the second century, many churches had a single bishop in charge; this can be seen in the writings of Ignatius, who insists on obedience to a single bishop in his letters, and he is sometimes given credit/blame for the change. By the end of the second century, the monoepiscopate was firmly entrenched.

Jerome even acknowledges this in his writings in the early 5th century:
The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. . . Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord (Comm. Tit. 1.7).

3. The church leaders were elected by the church, or chosen by other reputable men and confirmed by the whole congregation; not by lot, nor by simple appointment by a single or central authority. This can be seen in the Didache, in 1 Clement, and in Hippolytus.

4. They seem to have observed the Lord's Supper weekly, based on the Didache, Justin Martyr, etc.

5. They were not opposed to art, frescoes, mosaics, etc.; they painted depictions of many biblical scenes, including some of Christ himself. There is no evidence they prayed to or venerated their art though; quite to the contrary, in fact.

Thanks Matt. I think these are good examples of common practices.

[Soloist]

Here’s a question for your Ernie,

Do you believe that there was a common belief about which books were part of the New Testament canon?

[JohnL]

1. It seems fairly clear that it was common practice to meet on the first day of the week, that is, Sunday, for church services. This is because Jesus rose on the first day of the week, and they quickly began to call it the "Lord's Day."

2. They initially had a plurality of elders, rather than being led by one single bishop. This is confirmed both by NT study (there is no difference between elders and overseers; they were two terms for the same office), and by early church writings such as the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, and 1 Clement. The idea that you must a single person "in charge", as I've heard in some Anabaptist circles, was absent. But this changed during the struggles with heretics in the second century; they turned to key leaders to enforce order and keep heretics in check. By the middle of the second century, many churches had a single bishop in charge; this can be seen in the writings of Ignatius, who insists on obedience to a single bishop in his letters, and he is sometimes given credit/blame for the change. By the end of the second century, the monoepiscopate was firmly entrenched.

Jerome even acknowledges this in his writings in the early 5th century:
The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. . . Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord (Comm. Tit. 1.7).

3. The church leaders were elected by the church, or chosen by other reputable men and confirmed by the whole congregation; not by lot, nor by simple appointment by a single or central authority. This can be seen in the Didache, in 1 Clement, and in Hippolytus.

4. They seem to have observed the Lord's Supper weekly, based on the Didache, Justin Martyr, etc.

5. They were not opposed to art, frescoes, mosaics, etc.; they painted depictions of many biblical scenes, including some of Christ himself. There is no evidence they prayed to or venerated their art though; quite to the contrary, in fact.

Wow, Matt. This is a really good summary. Is there a book that you studied for this or did you compile these sources yourself.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

I would say it was a common belief of the early church that Jesus was raised from the dead. Unfortunately, according to 1 Cor 15, the belief that we all would one day experience a resurrection was not shared by the whole church.

Unfortunately, with gnostisism being a fairly early sect, it's hard to say any other belief that was held across the whole of the church.

Practice is tough too, with the widespread disagreement over whether the Mosaic Torah, or how much of the Torah, should apply to the church. This controversy was dealt with in Acts, Roman's, and Galatians, and was something that cropped up throughout the churches history, leading to differences in practice all over.

I'd venture to say that sharing meals together has always been a practice of Christians, from the early church and beyond. It may be a common social practice outside the church too, but it did have religious significance to the church: that was how they observed the Lord's ordinance of communion.