Book Review: Pagan Christianity, Part 2

[_Rick_C]

The "original" thread of: Book Review: Pagan Christianity
has a "lock" (@ Page 10) to where you can't get to it from "View latest post(er)".
To resolve this problem, we've decided on a new "continuation thread" (this is it).
Danny,
Matt & I discussed "a new thread" (and I hope you don't mind I went ahead and did it).

Picking up from Page 9 of the original thread:

Pagan Christianity
- Sacraments -

1. The chapter begins by agreeing with mainstream protestant churches regarding the practice of believer’s baptism. What are the arguments against infant baptism and sprinkling?

2. PC critiques the contemporary practice of delaying baptism. The authors argue that baptism should be done immediately (as was the case in the NT). What’s the downside of delaying?

3. PC argues that the Sinner’s Prayer has replaced the role of water baptism as the initial confession of faith despite the fact that nowhere in the NT do we find any person being led to the Lord by a sinner’s prayer. What are the key differences between baptism and this prayer?

4. Viola states that baptism began to be viewed as the one time means to forgiveness. Because of this, some started waiting till their deathbed to be baptized. What Scriptures could have been used to teach this? What do they really mean?

5. Viola takes issue with the phrase ‘personal Savior,’ claiming that it is too individualistic. Do you agree that the Sinner’s Prayer and use of the phrase ‘personal Savior’ turn the focus from ‘we’ to ‘I’?

6. PC states that the Lord’s Supper was a celebratory meal whereas today it is a solemn ceremony. Were these changes positive?

7. PC points out that the ‘love feast’ was prohibited by the Council of Carthage in AD397 and, thus, the name was changed to the ‘Eucharist.’ The authors argue that even though protestants have restored the more proper terms, they haven’t restored the more proper practice. Do you agree?

8. The Wesleyan Church now recommends each church share the Lord’s Supper each month (instead of quarterly). How often would you desire to share in the Lord’s Supper?

To which Paidion replied:

Matt wrote:
8. The Wesleyan Church now recommends each church share the Lord’s Supper each month (instead of quarterly). How often would you desire to share in the Lord’s Supper?

(Paidion's reply):
In the first two centuries, the communion (or "eucharist") was observed every Sunday. This was not "the Lord's Supper". The latter was a meal in honour of Christ (also called a "Love Feast") which culminated with the taking of the unleavened bread and the wine in remembrance of Jesus. I am not sure how or why the Love Feast was dropped from Christian practice.

Matt asked for further information on this, to which Paidion replied:

At "The Last Supper", Jesus was celebrating the Passover with His disciples. As I read the narrative, when the celebration of the Passover was complete, Jesus took bread (unleavened) and wine (also unleavened, in that all yeast used to make wine is eventually killed by the alcohol) and instituted the Communion (sharing). The significance of using unleavened elements is that that which was signified (His body and blood) were pure and unaffected by evil. Leaven is often used in the Scriptures to symolize something evil or false (Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees).

This communion began to be called "The Eucharist" (Thanksgiving) in the early church, as thanks was given to Christ for having given His body and blood on behalf of those who follow Him. But the first century church continued to practice "The Lord's Supper", also called "The Love Feast", that is, they had a meal in common, and then ended it with the Communion or Eucharist. This is evident from Paul's description of it in I Corinthians 11:20-22

When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?

These words of Paul clearly show that the Lord's Supper was a meal. If you were hungry, you wouldn't come to a Communion to get a little piece of wafer or a cube of white bread. Nor if you wanted to get drunk, would you come to a meeting to take a sip of wine or Welch's grape juice. There's no doubt that The Lord's Supper" was a full-fledged meal with food and wine being consumed. Jude mentions "love feasts" in verse 12 of his letter.

In the early days of Christianity, enemies of Christ's Assembly accused Christians of having promiscuous sexual intercourse at their love feasts. Apparently, this accusation arose from the very terminology "love feast" and "koinonia" (sharing). Indeed, the word translated "communion" ("koinonia") was used in the Greek world of the day as a term for sexual intercourse.

It may have been partially because of these accusations that the Love Feasts were later dropped from Christian practice, and only the taking of bread and wine was retained . But modern Christians who want to get back to "early church practice" would do well to consider participating once again in the full version of "The Lord's Supper", or "Love Feast".

[_Rick_C]

I added this post in the original thread (& deleted it, now re-posting):

Excerpted from: Al Maxey's study of The Lord's Supper

Another major characteristic of the early observance of the Lord's Supper was its lack of formality & ritualism. It was observed very simply and in connection with a fellowship meal (The Agape -- "Love Feast" -- Jude 12). "The disciples followed their Lord's example, celebrating a love-feast, which would be enriched with memories of their Master and teaching from His nearest disciples, and closing with the more solemn thanksgiving for the broken body and the cup of blessing which Jesus had consecrated" [Hastings, Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, p. 68]. The Lord's Supper began, "we believe, as a fellowship meal -- the Love Feast" (William Barclay, The Lord's Supper, p. 57). The DIDACHE (The Teaching of the Lord by the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles, which was written sometime between 70 - 110 A.D.) also indicates (in chapters 9 & 14) that the Lord's Supper and the Agape meal were celebrated together. However, by the beginning of the 2nd century the Lord's Supper and the Agape began to be separated from one another in many places. This was due to several factors, primarily: The abuses that were creeping in (see: I Corinthians 11:17-34; Jude 12; II Peter 2:13).

"At first the communion was joined with a 'Love Feast,' and was celebrated in the evening, in memory of the last supper of Jesus with His disciples. But as early as the beginning of the second century these two exercises were separated, and the communion was placed in the morning and the love feast in the evening" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2 -- Ante-Nicene Christianity, p. 239).

By the 4th century the abuses connected with the Love Feast were so numerous that it was finally prohibited in a great many locations. Because of these repeated abuses, it is not surprising to discover in church history that "the Eucharist has been detached from its setting as part of a common meal" (Hastings, Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 3, p. 375). This process of dissociation proved to be slow, however, and varied in different places.

The "separation of Love Feast and Communion" is cited as beginning as early as with Ignatius, at least in as far as his jurisdiction went.

If I'm not mistaken, the Church banned the "Love Feast," perhaps in part, because it was practiced by Jewish-Christians who continued to worship on the Sabbath (note their complete anathema below).

From: Council of Laodicea, 364AD

CANON XXVII.

NEITHER they of the priesthood, nor clergymen, nor laymen, who are invited to a love feast, may take away their portions, for this is to cast reproach on the ecclesiastical order.

CANON XXVIII.

IT is not permitted to hold love feasts, as they are called, in the Lord's Houses, or Churches, nor to eat and to spread couches in the house of God.

CANON XXIX.

CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.

CANON XXXVII.

IT is not lawful to receive portions sent from the feasts of Jews or heretics, nor to feast together with them.

CANON XXXVIII.

IT is not lawful to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety.

Btw, Maxey's entire article is an excellent historical overview. Among other things covered is: There was a debate on whether to use leavened or unleavened bread, etc., etc.

Other CANONS of Laodicea would pertain to this discussion as well.
____________________

Okay, now we're "up to date" on this topic! Thanks,

[Guest]

I am curious what Pagan Christianity says about singing and music in the early church. I have been reading an apparently similar book, "A Gathered People", by Hicks, Melton, and Valentine. While relating that the main features of the earliest practice of the assembly were scripture reading, preaching, prayer, communion, and a collection for the poor, they comment on Justin Martyr's apology:

As detailed as the description is - more so than any single passage in the New Testament - there is no evidence of singing (though the prayers may have been chanted) or the place, time of day or length of service.

Does it seem that there is far more emphasis on singing and music in the church today than in early Christianity? Today we have music ministers, bands, etc., etc. I like music, at least the kind I like , probably as much as anything, but is the modern emphasis on music, and entertainment, a thing of the flesh?

I have heard a pastor remark that you build a church through "good music". And a neighbor, who attends a large church, remarked to me that he wonders if the people are there "for the show".

[Guest]

The "separation of Love Feast and Communion" is cited as beginning as early as with Ignatius, at least in as far as his jurisdiction went.

I strongly disbelieve that the separation took place in the days of Ignatius. He was born in 30 A.D. and died in 107 A.D. He and Clement, Paul's fellow helper were both born in 30 A.D. Clement wrote that wonderful letter to the Corinthians shortly after Paul and Peter's death.

Some studies of the existing letters of Ignatius have led many to doubt that any of them are genuine. My own view is that, although some of them may be genuine, they are so heavily interpolated by later writers, that it is virtually impossible to separate the genuine parts from the intepolations. The fact that there is both a longer and shorter recension further complicates the issue.

The elder-overseer distinction which pervades all his existing letters as well as his constant emphasis of submitting to the overseers "as to Jesus Christ" is not characteristic of first century Christianity --- or even second century Christianity.

Any statement regarding first century Christian practice should not be based on the existing manuscripts of the letters of Ignatius.

[_Rick_C]

Hi Paidion,

The "separation of Love Feast and Communion" is cited as beginning as early as with Ignatius, at least in as far as his jurisdiction went.

I didn't say that some think the "separation of Love Feast and Communion" happened as early as with Ignatius. I said some have seen this "as beginning as early as" (which is something different than a "happening").

This line of thinking probably has more to do with how the Eucharist (Communion) was beginning to have a, if not "the," central part in Christian meetings. And, of course, the "Mass" eventually became very central in worship.

How genuine the "writings of Ignatius" are?: I don't want to dispute,

Excerpted from this link: Love Feast

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia makes this observation on the separation of the agape and Eucharist, and the eventual extinguishment of the agape:

In the Didache (ca. A.D. 100) there is no sign as yet of any separation. The direction that the second Eucharistic prayer should be offered “after being filled” appears to imply that a regular meal had immediately preceded the observance of the sacrament. In the Ignatian epistles (ca. A.D. 110), the Lord’s Supper and the agape are still found in combination...

When we come to Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 150), we find that in his account of church worship he does not mention the agape at all, but speaks of the Eucharist as following a service which consisted of the reading of Scripture, prayers, and exhortation. Tertullian (ca. A.D. 200) testifies to the continued existence of the agape, but shows clearly that in the church of the West, the Eucharist was no longer associated with it. In the East, the connection appears to have been longer maintained, but by and by the severance became universal; and though the agape continued for a long time to maintain itself as a social function of the Church, it gradually passed out of existence.” [Vol. 1, p. 66]

_________________________________

Hi Homer,

Somewhat related to what you asked about may be seen here:

CANON XV.

No others shall sing in the Church, save only the canonical singers, who go up into the ambo [a raised platform] and sing from a book.

Just thought it could pertain, Thanks,

[Guest]

Homer wrote

I am curious what Pagan Christianity says about singing and music in the early church. I have been reading an apparently similar book, "A Gathered People", by Hicks, Melton, and Valentine. While relating that the main features of the earliest practice of the assembly were scripture reading, preaching, prayer, communion, and a collection for the poor, they comment on Justin Martyr's apology:

Quote:
As detailed as the description is - more so than any single passage in the New Testament - there is no evidence of singing (though the prayers may have been chanted) or the place, time of day or length of service.


Does it seem that there is far more emphasis on singing and music in the church today than in early Christianity? Today we have music ministers, bands, etc., etc. I like music, at least the kind I like , probably as much as anything, but is the modern emphasis on music, and entertainment, a thing of the flesh?

I have heard a pastor remark that you build a church through "good music". And a neighbor, who attends a large church, remarked to me that he wonders if the people are there "for the show".

Hi Homer, I don't know what the book says about this issue but here's a quote from Tertullian. He was in the middle of describing a typical Christian meeting. It's taken from his Apology ch 39.

Btw...while doing a word search trying to find this specific quote, I stumbled accross, quite a number of times, singing being mentioned in the Church Fathers. I didn't stop to read the full context though.

The participants, before reclining, taste first of prayer to God. As much is eaten as satisfies the cravings of hunger; as much is drunk as befits the chaste. They say it is enough, as those who remember that even during the night they have to worship God; they talk as those who know that the Lord is one of their auditors. After manual ablution, and the bringing in of lights, each is asked to stand forth and sing, as he can, a hymn to God, either one from the holy Scriptures or one of his own composing, .

I too have wondered, even when I was a very new Christian, about the disproportionate emphasis that we have on music as compared to the New Testament. Though I still have concern, I have scaled back my judgment somewhat. I'm taking into consideration many things that God uses that are not explicitly mentioned in the scripture like the Internet, Radio Shows, Gospel Tracts etc...

Steve F

[Guest]

It seems that even in the present writings of Ignatius, both the eucharist and the love feast are mentioned.

To the Smynaens, beginning of Chapter 8

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the
Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

It seems that love feasts were celebrated as late as Origen’s day (185 A.D. to 254 A.D.)

Origen Against Celsus Book 1, Chapter 1

The first point which Celsus brings forward, in his desire to throw
discredit upon Christianity, is, that the Christians entered into secret
associations with each other contrary to law, saying, that “of associations
some are public, and that these are in accordance with the laws; others,
again, secret, and maintained in violation of the laws.” And his wish is to
bring into disrepute what are termed the “love-feasts “ of the Christians,
as if they had their origin in the common danger, and were more binding
than any oaths.

In his CANONS, Hippolytus (170 A.D. to 236 A.D) gives a rule concerning the benediction and thanksgiving at love feasts when a bishop (overseer) is absent.

HEADS OF THE CANONS
OF ABULIDES OR HIPPOLYTUS
WHICH ARE USED BY THE AETHIOPIAN CHRISTIANS

35. That deacons may pronounce the benediction and thanksgiving at the
love-feasts when a bishop is not present.

[_Rick_C]

Hi Steve F,

As can be seen with the Laodicean Council Canon (above); and at least in those churches who came under the Council's jurisdiction; only "canonical" (i.e., "standard") singers were permitted to sing. These would have been who we call the choir.

Nothing in the NT makes any distinction along these lines.

Also, as a guitar player and music hobbyist, I recently found and downloaded some audio of early Christian hymns (which were recorded on the original instruments that were reconstructed by a musicologist). Documents have been found that had (ancient) musical notation with lyrics. At any rate, some dated to the mid2nd century. I don't recall if this musicologist said that the songs were sung only by "canonicals" or if they were "congregational." However, if I had to guess, I'd say both (an ancient "worship team" with the whole church singing along). Just a guess....Thanks,

[Guest]

Rick wrote

As can be seen with the Laodicean Council Canon (above); and at least in those churches who came under the Council's jurisdiction; only "canonical" (i.e., "standard") singers were permitted to sing. These would have been who we call the choir.

That's interesting Rick. It seems that 150 years earlier (in Northern Africa anyway) things were quite different. When I read Tertullian's description of singing, I picture a much less formal scenario. Apparently everyone took part and many even sang songs of their own making.

Steve F

[Guest]

Hi Steve F, et al,

Steve F wrote:

I too have wondered, even when I was a very new Christian, about the disproportionate emphasis that we have on music as compared to the New Testament.

I am wondering this more and more. We are far from being "seeker" oriented where we attend church, but it seems when pressed for time we more easily pray less as opposed to having less singing. I object to this. If I'm leading the prayer part of the service, I don't cut back.

I have also noticed a collection for the poor seems to have been an important part of the early christian worship, following immediately after the communion (or eucharist), whereas today many churches do not have an offering as part of the service, but just a box to drop a contribution into. Of course, a lot of what is given today goes for different purposes.

One other statement I found interesting in the book I'm reading regarding the Lord's Supper is that:

Whatever reason one might offer for not eating every Sunday, the same reason could be given for not meeting. Whatever reason one might offer for meeting every Sunday, the same reason could be given for eating.

Looks like I need to read Violas' book when I finish this one.