The first picture that pops into my mind is a big stone cathedral in the middle of nowhere overgrown with moss and trees, half forgotten.... I admit it, I'm a romantic Thinking more theologically it means to me that one church that Christ founded 2000 years ago, both visible and invisible
The CHURCH began on earth when Adam and Eve accepted the COVERING of the animal skins that God gave them- surely when the blood of the animals was spilled.. and They were covered, they were being POINTED toward the PROMISED MESSIAH.. The SEED OF THE WOMAN who would have His Heel BRUISED by the devil.. but He would CRUSH his head.. whenever and wherever God's people looked ahead to the Promised ONE and what HE would DO for them by offereing up HIMSELF, THERE was THE CHURCH. Isaiah 61:10 "I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels."
Adam and Eve? Are you saying that you take the creation story literally? I am asking with all due respect just trying to figure out if that is what you mean to say.
If the alternatives are figuratively or allegorically, then yes. So did Jesus and the Apostles. I wonder whether if we called it "a tradition of the ancient Church" rather than "the word of God", whether that might make some to be more inclined to believe it.
Well I see where you are coming from but I think it is hard to believe that Genesis is literal for many people. ANd that is nothing new. People have seen it as allegorical or figuratively for a long time. I remember reading something from St John Chrysostom where he states that at least parts of it are such.
When I think of the Ancient Church I think of the 33 AD- 250 AD. Its arbitrary on my part. I think many would say the first 5 centuries. But I am not a big fan of the imperialization of the Church post-Constantine.
When I think of the term ancient church, one of my considerations takes me to the cathedrals and abbeys of my ancestors in Scotland. Thanks to the poetry and novels of Walter Scott (1771 - 1832), and the illustrations used in various editions of his writings, I have a glimpse of where my ancestors migrated from (circa 1720s) when they settled in the hills and hollows of Appalachia. ...Scottish Monk Illustration from The Abbot, Waverly Novel by Walter Scott. Illustration title: Abbey of St. Mary's (based upon Melrose Abbey). Position in text: vol. 2, facing p. 46. Artist: Samuel Prout. Engraver: Edward Frances Finden (steel engraving). Size: 8 x 12 cm. Source: Landscape Illustrations of the Waverley Novels, with Descriptions of the Views, 2 vols (London: Charles Tilt, 1832). Notes: Depicts ruins of Melrose Abbey (interior) with cattle grazing. Accompanying quoted text (p. 46): 'An half-hour's walk . . . fury of the times' [Ch. 13; EEWN 10, 96-97]. Legend states published September 1830. Ground plan of original Melrose Abbey. Founder: David I of Scotland. Established: 1136 AD. Disestablished: 1609 AD. Kilwinning Abbey. Location: Kilwinning, Ayrshire, Scotland. Founder: Richard de Morville. Mother House: Kelso Abbey. Established: circa 1162-1168 AD. Disestablished: 1592 AD.
I believe in the creeds and the Ecumenical Councils. What I am referring to is the Transformation of bishops from shepards into Civil Authorities with power over Imperial Governors and citizens whether they were Christian or not. Power corrupts. But thank you for being so concerned about spititaul well being.
So that is what you meant when you said earlier "People have seen it [Genesis] as allegorical or figuratively for a long time."? Obviously, I'm still confused. In an effort to get this back to the question of how one understands and applies 'The ancient Church', I still want to know to what extent you receive the Creeds as axiomatic statements about what it means to be a Christian. Take for example this assertion "I believe in God the Father Almighty". What do you think that means? What do you think it doesn't mean? How does it relate to concepts you might have heard about God's Sovereignty or control of history?
I think I must have misunderstood what you meant when you said "For your sake, I hope that when you say the Creeds you have your fingers crossed" I thought that you were responding to my post where I stated that I was not a big fan of the imperialization of the Church. Of course the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was the product of 2 Ecumenical (Imperial) Councils that were called by the Roman (Byzantine) Emperors. When I recite that "I believe in God the Father Almighty" I actually mean just that. I don't think evolution negates God's Sovereignty or His control of history(as long as we agree in free will).In my opinion evolution is even a more spectacular example of God's love and omnipotence than fashioning 1 man and 1 woman out of clay. Of course if you take genesis literally you will have to deal with all kinds of difficult questions related to the text. And if one is fundalmentalist in reading the Holy Bible in its entirety they will have difficult questions to answer regarding discrepancies. That doesn't mean we don't believe that the Holy Bible is the inspired word of God. I think it is a Christian duty to think for themselves and to think critically.
No we do not agree that man has "free will". God does, but man remains in bondage unless God should be merciful. You've proved my point. God is either Almighty, as it says in the Creeds, or He is not if his almighty-ness is moderated by a man's free will.
The idea of God as Sovereign is not entirely ruled out by the concept of human Free will, providing it is a freely undergone self-limitation out of love for creation. Or holding God to being subject to the consequences of actions he freely commits to in order to maintain a universe that follows a rational pattern and logical consistency, a universe he opts to make from all other possible options, strikes me as not too fanciful... To be honest when one considers the person of Christ to be the revelation of God par excellence, and that is the poor man, the servant, the crucified- I can't help but query whether the common conception of 'Almighty' is not inadequate, verging on the antinomic? Meanwhile, I find it interesting that everyone assumes the 'Ancient Church' is something that has definitively ended. Do all lines of continuity just snap apart at everyone's preferred cut off date?
When I say "Ancient Church," I probably think of the period between Acts and 300 or 400...something like that. No real reason for why I chose those dates. Some make the case that it stretches to 787 & Nicaea II. But no, the lines of continuity don't come apart.
When I speak of the ,"Ancient Church," I usually refer to the traditional church in what is now England. Not ,now, the C.of E, but the whole body of teaching the faith from the Celtic Church till 1994 and now those people in Britain who still keep to the Old Faith. It is the faith, Once Revealed that makes the Church! At least in my estimation!
Yes, starting with the Celtic Church--I got that. But what is the significance of 1994? ...Scottish Monk
The year when the theory that one's genitalia became irrelevant in deciding if you were fit to administer the sacraments of the Church was put into practice. ...Or the year the Lion King was released, or Cotton-eye Joe topped the Charts, take your pick!
If you ask your typical Anglican "what did the ancient Church believe?", you get the answer that "it believed the old Faith". If you ask "what is the old Faith?", the answer will be "it is what the ancient Church believed", and then you will hear a long recitation of dates and names whose purpose is to change the river of Anglican thought so as to make it seem broad rather than narrow, to validate the present rather than to change it. It is exactly this sort of subjective, circular, man-centered, imprecise and lazy reasoning that creeds, confessions, and Scripture are designed to stop. If you want to know about the "ancient church", what you really should do is read her objective creeds, confessions and Holy Scripture.