Tuesday, June 29, 2010

The Birth of the Inquisition

Part 1: Augustine as Conduit to the Inquisition
Part 2: How Confession became a Divinely Instituted Sacrament
Part 3: The Origins of Payment for Penance
Part 4: Crusading and Other Indulgences
Part 5: The Great Schism of the Fifth Century
Part 6: “Deliver us from the hands of the Romans”
Part 7: Impetus for the Crusades
Part 8: “Babies roasted on spits”
Part 9: The Insecurity of the Medieval Church
Part 10: When Suppressing Heresy Became a Crusade

This will be the last of the longer selections I’ll post from Johnson’s “A History of Christianity.” Though it's possible that I will bring up a point or two in another post.

As I noted at the outset of this series, I thought it was important to show that the roots of the Inquisition go back to Augustine -- his world and theology. Many Reformed and Evangelical Protestants know that the Inquisition occurred, but are less familiar with why it occurred or how it came about. What we have in this series is the gestation and the birth of that institution. I know that this series has been tedious for some; perhaps it has been interesting for others. I found it interesting and edifying.

Of course, the ultimate purpose, on this blog, is to talk about the Reformation in an apologetic sense. And that, too, is what I hoped to do – to put “out there” just one more reason for the Reformation.

The Inquisition itself provided the sort of “mood,” or “back-drop” within which other theologies developed. That may or may not be important. Some memories of the Inquisition made it into the U.S. Constitution, in the form of a prohibition against a state religion, and also a prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Just precisely how these came about should be the topics of another study. I don’t have all the answers. I merely hope to arouse some curiosity, and to provoke some questions.

* * *

Ever since the eleventh century, secular rulers had been burning those who obstinately refused to fit in with established Christian arrangements; the Church had opposed capital punishment, successive councils decreeing confiscation of property, excommunication, imprisonment or whipping, branding and exile. But in the 1180s, the Church began to panic at the spread of heresy, and thereafter it took the lead from the State, though it maintained the legal fiction that convicted and unrepentant heretics were merely 'deprived of the protection of the Church', which was (as they termed it) 'relaxed', the civil power then being free to burn them without committing mortal sin. Relaxation was accompanied by a formal plea for mercy; in fact this was meaningless, and the individual civil officer (sheriffs and so forth) had no choice but to burn, since otherwise he was denounced as a 'defender of heretics', and plunged into the perils of the system himself.

The codification of legislation against heresy took place over half a century, roughly 1180-1230, when it culminated in the creation of a permanent tribunal, staffed by Dominican friars, who worked from a fixed base in conjunction with the episcopate, and were endowed with generous authority. The permanent system was designed as a reform; in fact it incorporated all the abuses of earlier practice and added new ones. It had a certain vicious logic. Since a heretic was denied burial in consecrated ground, the corpses of those posthumously convicted (a very frequent occurrence) had to be disinterred, dragged through the streets and burnt on the refuse pit. The houses in which they lived had to be knocked down and turned into sewers or rubbish-dumps.

Convictions of thought-crimes being difficult to secure, the Inquisition used procedures banned in other courts, and so contravened town charters, written and customary laws, and virtually every aspect of established jurisprudence. The names of hostile witnesses were withheld, anonymous informers were used, the accusations of personal enemies were allowed, the accused were denied the right of defence, or of defending counsel; and there was no appeal. The object, quite simply, was to produce convictions at any cost; only thus, it was thought, could heresy be quenched. Hence depositors were not named; all a suspect could do was to produce a list of his enemies, and he was allowed to bring forward witnesses to testify that such enemies existed, but for no other purpose. On the other hand, the prosecution could use the evidence of criminals, heretics, children and accomplices, usually forbidden in other courts.

Once an area became infected by heresy, and the system moved in, large numbers of people became entangled in its toils. Children of heretics could not inherit, as the stain was vicarial; grandchildren could not hold ecclesiastical benefices unless they successfully denounced someone. Everyone from the age of fourteen (girls from twelve) were required to take public oaths every two years to remain good Catholics and denounce heretics. Failure to confess or receive communion at least three times a year aroused automatic suspicion; possession of the scriptures in any language, or of breviaries, hour-books and psalters in the vernacular, was forbidden. Torture was not employed regularly until near the end of the thirteenth century (except by secular officials without reference to the Inquisition) but suspects could be held in prison and summoned again and again until they yielded, the object of the operation being to obtain admissions or denunciations. When torture was adopted it was subjected to canonical restraints - if it produced nothing on the first occasion it was forbidden to repeat it. But such regulations were open to glosses; Francis Pegna, the leading Inquisition commentator, wrote:

'But if, having been tortured reasonably (decenter), he will not confess the truth, set other sorts of torments before him, saying that he must pass through all these unless he will confess the truth. If even this fails, a second or third day may be appointed to him, either in terrorem or even in truth, for the continuation (not repetition) of torture; for tortures may not be repeated unless fresh evidence emerges against him; then, indeed, they may, for against continuation there is no prohibition.'

Pegna said that pregnant women might not be tortured, for fear of abortions: 'we must wait until she is delivered of her child'; and children below the age of puberty, and old folk, were to be less severely tortured. The methods used were, on the whole, less horrific than those employed by various secular governments - though it should be added that English common lawyers, for instance, flatly denied that torture was legal, except in case of refusal to plead.

Once a victim was accused, escape from some kind of punishment was virtually impossible: the system would not allow it. But comparatively few were executed: less than ten per cent of those liable. Life-imprisonment was usual for those 'converted' by fear of death; this could be shortened by denunciations. Acts of sympathy or favour for heretics were punished by imprisonment or pilgrimage; there were also fines or floggings, and penance in some form was required of all those who came into contact with the infected, even though unknowingly and innocently. The smallest punishment was to wear yellow cloth crosses - an unpopular penalty since it prevented a man from getting employment; on the other hand, to cease to wear it was treated as a relapse into heresy. A spell in prison was virtually inevitable.

Of course there was a shortage of prison-space, since solitary confinement was the rule. Once the Inquisition moved into an area, the bishop's prison was soon full; then the king's; then old buildings had to be converted, or new ones built. Food was the prisoner's own responsibility, though the bishop was supposed to provide bread and water in the case of poverty. The secular authorities did not like these crowded prisons, being terrified of gaol fever and plague, and thus burned many more people than the Church authorized. The system was saved from utter horror only by the usual medieval frailties: corruption, inertia, and sheer administrative incompetence.

Where the system was employed against an entire community, as in Languedoc, it evoked resistance. There were riots, murders, the destruction of records. Many countries would not admit the Inquisition at all. In Spain, however, it became a state instrument, almost a national institution, like bullfighting, a mystery to foreigners but popular among the natives. It is surprising how often admirable, if eccentric, individuals were burned, not only without public protest but with general approval. Thus the fourteenth century breakaway movement of Franciscans, the fraticelli, who opposed clerical property and reasserted the apostolic practices of their founder, were hunted and burned all over Europe but especially in their native Umbria and the Mark of Ancona; the crowds who watched them destroyed were apathetic or inclined to believe antinomianism was rightly punished. In the Middle Ages, the ruthless and confident exercise of authority could nearly always swing a majority behind it. And the victims of the flames usually died screaming in pain and terror, thus appearing to confirm the justice of the proceedings.

Paul Johnson, History of Christianity, © 1976 Athenium, pgs. 253-255.

18 comments:

David Waltz said...

Hello John,

An interesting series…

IMO, the probable “roots of the Inquisition” are older than Augustine. Hope you can find the time to read Ramsey MacMullen’s Voting About God, which I reference and link to in THIS THREAD.


Grace and peace,

David

Tim Enloe said...

I hope some actual analysis of all of this is coming. Long quotes from secondary sources can be informative, but unless some engagement with primary texts eventually arrives, one cannot be sure the secondary is properly representing the matter. And unless some reflective questions about one's own purposes in producing such quotes and about one's own preconceptions relative to the information presented in the quotes are asked, the whole thing runs the risk of being just another one-sided diatribe. That's something that simply isn't tolerated when "Romanists" do it with the Fathers, so it shouldn't be a staple of our side of things.

Turretinfan said...

Long quotations from secondary sources don't add to the secondary sources.

What they may do, however, is bring the secondary source and its analysis (if it has any) to the attention of readers who have not seen it.

I'm not a fan of secondary sources, but I acknowledge that there are right and wrong ways to use them.

John Bugay said...

Hi TF -- thanks for your comments. We have talked briefly about secondary sources. The thing that I hope to bring here is something that I've found to be particularly helpful, especially when discussing theologians, and that is, context. It's one thing to put out quotes from someone like Ambrosiaster or Cyril of Jerusalem or Cyril of Alexandria. But it's another thing to know the context in which they lived, or the situations they addressed. I've found history to be a useful framework on which to hang the work of the theologians.

Tim, I know that you have been reading this and commenting on this, and I appreciate it. You and I are in the same boat, not having read broadly in Augustine's anti-Donatist writings. Maybe that will come down the line. But part of my reason for putting this all together is just simply to "tell the story." I'm happy that I have prompted questions. What percentage of the readers here -- or anywhere -- do you think have read about this particular facet of the history of the church? I've audited two separate "church history" courses, made available by two different institutions, and I didn't come across this subject matter.

David Waltz -- I know that Johnson's work is not the most recent, and that it's more of a popular than a scholarly treatment, and that yields, as you say, "limitations." I've commented on Johnson's works elsewhere. His "History of the American People" and "Modern Times" were extraordinarily well done. He is honest with the sources. I think it's possible to do much worse than what Johnson has done.

I looked briefly at the MacMullen work -- it looks like the kind of thing I'd be interested in, although it's not my most pressing interest at the time. (I find it maddening when Google Books leaves out large chunks the way it does).

Back to the topic of "primary sources" -- I think MacMullen makes an important point when he says, "Where so much depended on written words, naturally they were often falsified. Much forgery went on, both of the documents to be adduced in the flow of conciliar arguments and in the production of the written sources themselves" (107). Currently I'm sifting through the forgeries and pseudepigrapha that have sprung up around the topic of Peter and the papacy.

Steve Hays is correct when he says that even primary sources can largely become secondary sources, once the textual editing process has been applied and the forgeries sifted out.

Sometimes just getting to know who to trust is a huge part of the effort.

David Waltz said...

Hello John,

Thanks for responding; you posted:

>>David Waltz -- I know that Johnson's work is not the most recent, and that it's more of a popular than a scholarly treatment, and that yields, as you say, "limitations." I've commented on Johnson's works elsewhere. His "History of the American People" and "Modern Times" were extraordinarily well done. He is honest with the sources. I think it's possible to do much worse than what Johnson has done.>>

Me: I concur with your assessment that “it’s possible to do much worse than what Johnson has done.” Though Johnson was a journalist by profession and not a trained historian, I am not aware of any critical reviews that take issue with the honesty of his tome.

>>I looked briefly at the MacMullen work -- it looks like the kind of thing I'd be interested in, although it's not my most pressing interest at the time. (I find it maddening when Google Books leaves out large chunks the way it does).>>

Me: Understood; if you do begin to read the work and need some of the missing portions ‘filled in’, I own the book...

[FYI: The book can be purchased for a price as low as $25.33 - http://www.allbookstores.com/book/compare/0300115962]

Grace and peace,

David

John Bugay said...

Thanks David. It actually looks like a book that I might want to buy, although, it's not in the cards right now.

Somewhere around here, I have a post on the violence in the early Roman church. It seems from MacMullen's work that he's picked up on both the violence and the forgeries that were fairly widespread at that time: the church adopted Roman practices. (Or, various individuals within the church were strongly influenced by, and sought to influence others through the use of violence and forgery.)

I think that an understanding of those things needs to shape our understanding of what the early church was like. You are probably correct in that these things were more of an influence on the Inquisition than Augustine was. (Although, as one of the earlier posts in this series mentioned, Augustine, through his theology, tried to make sense of the violence of the times.)

I think this is especially important as Protestants try to convey to Catholics what their doctrine of the church is.

Roman Catholics want to talk about "the Church that Christ founded" and then tie the person to the office through an act of laying on of hands.

But rather, the office of minister is not tied to that perfunctory act in the NT, it's tied to both personal behavior and a teaching of sound doctrine. At a minimum, a "shepherd" should be a Christian.

For Roman Catholics, the perfunctory physical succession is what seems to be most important in defining "Church". No matter what a liar someone was, or how violent, so long as that person could function as a "placeholder" in the "unbroken succession," that's all that matters. Whether or not he could be counted among the elect. The "shepherd" could be a wolf.

But for those who are members of the true "one true church" (all the elect throughout time), leadership is at a minimum dependent on having a Christian in that position.

And from what MacMullen is saying, there evidently were lots of wolves "voting on God" at various times, and in various places.

PeaceByJesus said...

Just found this interesting and valuable series, and hope to God i can read more of it. I do tend to check out authors and thought you might be interested in excerpts of what a few reviewers said:

First on Paul Johnson:
WP:
Paul Bede Johnson (born 2 November 1928 in Manchester, England) is an English Roman Catholic journalist, historian, speechwriter and author. He was educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford. Johnson first came to prominence in the 1950s as a journalist writing for, and later editing, the New Statesman magazine. A prolific writer, he has written over 40 books and contributed to numerous magazines and newspapers. While associated with the left in his early career, he is now a prominent conservative popular historian. His son is the journalist Daniel Johnson, founder of Standpoint. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_%28writer%29

eNotes.com, :
Although Johnson has addressed a broad spectrum of topics, works concerning history and religion dominate his oeuvre. Even while surveying religion, Johnson writes from the perspective of a historian with a strong and highly developed narrative voice. This is evident in A History of Christianity, which relates the story of the public church vis-à-vis the intellectual and political history of Western Europe.

This work attempts to relate a complete history of Christianity, including commentary on episodes such as the Roman Catholic Church's complacency during Nazi rule in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. This work asserts that, despite Christianity's failings, the religion's espousal of the human potential for goodness provides a counterweight to the human capacity for evil. The decline of Christianity in the twentieth century is cited as a major contributing factor to the ills and abominations that have occurred since 1900. A History of the Jews grew out of Johnson's copious research for A History of Christianity, when he discovered that Christianity owed a much greater debt to Judaism than he had previously realized. - http://www.enotes.com/contemporary-literary-criticism/johnson-paul

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 2:

On the book:

WP:
A History of Christianity is a historical study of the Christian religion written by British journalist and author Paul Johnson. The book was published in 1976 and aims to be a factual comprehensive history of the Christian religion. Johnson, a Roman Catholic, takes the view that "During these two millennia Christianity has, perhaps, proved more influential in shaping human destiny than any other institutional philosophy, but there are now signs that its period of predominance is drawing to a close, thereby inviting a retrospect and a balance sheet." (vii). He argues for the need to focus on an unbiased factual history: "Christianity is essentially a historical religion. It bases its claims on the historical facts it asserts. If they are demolished it is nothing." (vii) "A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts." (viii)

As a factual history, the book is not an apologetic defense of the religion and presents a hard-lined discussion of many of the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. Johnson admits such in the Epilogue, saying his book "has necessarily stressed [Christianity's] failures and shortcomings, and its institutional distortions." But, also in the epilogue, Johnson makes the case that Christianity is self-correcting, with an "outstanding moral merit to invest the individual with a conscience, and bid him to follow it" and states "it is thus no accident that all the implantations of freedom throughout the world have ultimately a Christian origin." (516) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Christianity


The Christian Century:
In "the best one-volume history of Christianity ever done," according to The Christian Century, Johnson takes off in the year 49 with his namesake the apostle Paul. Thus beginning an ambitious quest to paint the centuries since the founding of a little-known "Jesus Sect", A History of Christianity explores to a great degree the evolution of the Western world.

With an unbiased and overall optimistic tone, Johnson traces the fantastic scope of the consequent sects of Christianity and the people who followed them. Information drawn from extensive and varied sources from around the world makes this history as credible as it is reliable. Invaluable understanding of the framework of modern Christianity - and its trials and tribulations throughout history - has never before been contained in such a captivating work. -http://www.ebooksbay.org/detail/1213450.html

But is also describes Johnson's or thye reviewer's interpretation of Gal. 2, which shows a liberal eisegesis. In short, the leaders desire to Paul to remember the poor was not a bargain in which the pillars agreed to stand firm against the Judaizers in return for financial support for the Jerusalem Church by Paul's people. How willingly the Bible is made rendered into one's own liking.

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 3:

James H. Nichols, Princeton Theological Seminary:
Johnson's beginning is revealing, with the consultation of 49 in Jerusalem, described as "the first great turning point in the history of Christianity." He significantly does not even attempt a definition of the teaching of Jesus,..

This approach to the subject makes it clear that the author has a minimal interest in the interpretation of Christianity as a faith or religion. He rather interests himself in its institutional and political manifestations and consequences....

The classical representative of pessimist Christianity, however, is not Tertullian, but Augustine, "the dark genius of imperial Christianity, the ideologue of the Church-State alliance, and the fabricator of the medieval mentality . .

Granted Johnson's definition of the theme and angle of vision, this is a consistently interesting and instructive telling of the story with a pardonable ratio of clear errors. It is stronger on institutional manifestations, such as persecutions, crusades, inquisitions, witchhunting, church finances, missions, and imperialism than on intellectual and theological developments, stronger on popes and emperors than on saints and prophets and simple believers.

The classical representative of pessimist Christianity, however, is not Tertullian, but Augustine, "the dark genius of imperial Christianity, the ideologue of the Church-State alliance, and the fabricator of the medieval mentality . . . -http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1977/v34-3-bookreview4.htm

PeaceByJesus said...

Finaly, Amazon has many a summary and analysis, one review being from History of Christianity (again, these are only excerpts).

What he does do is try to analyze where Roman Catholicism went right (and wrong) over the past couple of centuries. A couple of questions he answers, or tries to answer, are:

*What caused discontent with the Church's misconduct to boil over into the Reformation? Johnson points out that the printing press and increased links to the Mediterranean gave European scholars the opportunity to study the Bible in its original languagues (Hebrew and Greek), as well as to encounter Greek philosophical works that had been lost during the Dark Ages. In addition, murder in the guise of heretic-hunting may have discredited the Church.

*Why is the Roman Catholic Church so centralized? Why didn't it become decentralized like Judaism? In the early days of Christianity, the bishop of Rome was apparently just another bishop. The body of St. Peter was buried in Rome, so the relic cult enhanced the prestige of Rome. And in the past few centuries, the growth of mass media and the decline of monarchy (and thus of state influence over Catholicism in France, Spain etc.) meant that popes could go over the heads of bishops and communicate with the masses.

Why has Christianity flourished in some areas outside Europe but not others? Johnson explains that Christianity consistently outcompetes paganism because paganism provides no explanation of the afterlife, while Christianity promises salvation. So in primitive areas where Christianity's only competitor is paganism, Christianity spreads. But Islam (and to a lesser extent, other major religions) addresses these issues to the satisfaction of many-

http://www.amazon.com/History-Christianity-Paul-Johnson/product-reviews/0684815036/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

PeaceByJesus said...

My own unprofessional take on the aspect of Christianity arising out of many competing sects, is that rather than this impugning upon its Divine origins, it is evidence for it, as it arose in victory over competition.

Of course, you also have the copycat charges, which good men have dealt with: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.html
http://kingdavid8.com/Copycat/Home.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html
http://www.preventingtruthdecay.org/zeitgeistpartone.shtml

The comment on Christianity versus paganism and against Islam has some merit, but the reason given for the former's victory over paganism applies to a degree to Islam's success over it, and the reason why is that the devil built Islam by using important and stories and doctrines from the Bible, making it superior to pagainsm, while denying its critical salvific aspects.

But while Christianity is superior morally and in other aspects, what he seems to miss or marginalize is that in addition to such, what the Biblical Christian faith most primarily and uniquely offers is a supernatural relationship with the almighty Creator, faith in which results in the realization of things in heart and life which correspond to its claims, and are not naturally explained when all is said and done.

The thousands of hymns (blind Fanny Crosby's wrote 4,000 hymns alone) describing this relationship is only one aspect of that testimony.

It is because of this that the
N.T. church of the truth was stipulated to be "the church of the living God." And if the faith the church preaches does not result in its Biblically dramatic transformative effects then it cannot claim to be such, and i need to better manifest that faith myself.

"by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2Cor. 4:2b)

PeaceByJesus said...

It seems my part 1 is lost in cyber space. It was a brief on who Johnson is,

"an English Roman Catholic journalist, historian, speechwriter and author. He was educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford. Johnson first came to prominence in the 1950s as a journalist writing for, and later editing, the New Statesman magazine. A prolific writer, he has written over 40 books and contributed to numerous magazines and newspapers. While associated with the left in his early career, he is now a prominent conservative popular historian. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_%28writer%29

John Bugay said...

Hi PBJ, thanks for taking a look at this series and for commenting on it. As Tim Enloe noted in the second comment here, it would have been best for me to have really interacted with what Johnson was saying using some other sources. I made a few comments, but really didn't interact with the text much.

My real hope was just to provide a long swatch of history and to use it as context for what is my real interest, the Reformation. I still think this period is vitally important to that historical period, so some interaction may be forthcoming. Looking back, I mentioned that I was posting this in response to something that I had heard in a lecture that Carl Trueman gave - over the last few years, I have been listening to seminary courses as I can find them on iTunes, etc. Trueman is a professor of Church History at Westminster (Philadelphia), and I had stumbled across some of his lectures on the history of the medieval church. Initially, I was responding to something I had heard there.

In real life I am a professional marketer and I must work very hard to stay afloat these days. I don't imagine too many people are in a different condition. But theology and church history are interests of mine that go way back, and I also hope to continue to sort of "press forwards on all fronts".

My own unprofessional take on the aspect of Christianity arising out of many competing sects, is that rather than this impugning upon its Divine origins, it is evidence for it, as it arose in victory over competition.

You may be interested in a work that I've written about (but again, not completely, and not as much as I would have liked): The Heresy of Orthodoxy, by Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger, provides a very thorough response to "the Bauer/Ehrman thesis," that is, as you have described, the thesis that early Christianity arose out of many competing sects.

In this work, the authors argue strenuously that not only was there an "early orthodoxy" (that is, an orthodoxy of the Apostolic era), but that that "orthodox faith" was inscripturated in the form of "covenant documents" that became canonized in the New Testament.

This is another piece I wish I'd spent more time with, and Lord willing I'll get to it again in the future. But it's a tremendous overview on the history of the earliest church.

John Bugay said...

I am familiar with Johnson and that's why I cited him so heavily. He is of course a Roman Catholic, and in most instances he is reliably conservative. I am aware of his reliance on sources that are slightly liberal, and I'd have to say that he even relies on "the Bauer thesis" (or work that has come out of that), with which I would not really agree.

But investigating that early period to extract the wheat from the tares is difficult and work, and it is the work of a specialist that I do not at present have time to spend on these things. (Though in the future, I would very much like to do this.)

If you've read Johnson's "Modern Times" you will find it's an exceptional history of the 20th century. I've read some of his other works as well ("Intellectuals," for example), and he's got a tremendous grasp of how things work.

IMO, there are few things that we can do that will yield the kind of understanding that a study of church history will do. For me, the study of church history is not only a very fulfilling exercise on its own, but it provides an exceptional framework upon which can be fitted the studies in many other areas, from philosophy to literature to economics.

Of course, there is a point at which that breaks down, but it's like the guy who said, "reach for the stars; even if you don't get there, you'll have gone a long way." That's how I see all of this fitting together.

PeaceByJesus said...

Thank God for your response. I know this thread was old, but i keep discovering what a worthy resource your blog has become, and feel bad so few seem to be aware of it, and this series in particular is a needed one!

"In real life I am a professional marketer and I must work very hard to stay afloat these days."

Well, you are doubling as a professor of sorts, and I really appreciate your efforts! I myself am blessed to be part of a very small faith tract ministry, but i must be "in" more, i find myself doing apologetics. If you had a PayPal link i could try to send a little.

God willing, perhaps someday you will have a real web site, with tabs for different sections and drop down menus. But i do not do much html myself.

not only was there an "early orthodoxy" (that is, an orthodoxy of the Apostolic era), but that that "orthodox faith" was inscripturated in the form of "covenant documents" that became canonized in the New Testament.

That needs to be said, and i should have acknowledged that. And the competition actually evidences this, as behind every counterfeit there is a genuine article. Some get one phony bill and want to through the rest away, not discerning the qualities which mark genuine essential faith.

The The Heresy of Orthodoxy page was good, and this quote from it,

This is the "diversity" issue that the authors discuss. The notion that every idea, no matter its source, no matter how far-fetched it is, must be given not only a fair hearing,

is something i have ran into on Wikipedia, which i somethings edit. What one editor extrapolated out of the story of David and Jonathan took some time to temper. And what such do to the Bible robs it of its Divine authority.

PeaceByJesus said...

IMO, there are few things that we can do that will yield the kind of understanding that a study of church history will do.

I believe the Lord's hand is in this emphasis, as it is needed as long as kept in perspective. Perhaps at the beginning of the Reformation this historical awareness was a given among its preachers, but i think a side effect of the Great Awakenings (the series by J. Edwin Orr is quite good) reaction to institutionalized religion, and the manifestation of what God was doing now in revivals, was a neglect of the historical roots of the faith.

While Rome interprets history as providing formal linkage to the church in Rome, and unduly supposes this confers authenticity, the evangelical movement emphasis is upon a N.T. faith which results in a present reality of manifest regeneration, by which it gains its members.

But now overall we have lost some ground in doctrinal and personal purity, due to worldliness, and i also sense that, having historically matured, it is undergoing a type of mid-life crises, and in which it is looking for its roots. And you cannot separate the 1800's from the 300's, though i disagree that the father's necessarily had more light than one may have now, by the grace of God, nor the rabins of the Talmud on the Jewish side. But i think that overall "father" were very pious.

And upon the young, which stats show evangelical churches are very low in, there is great ignorance even as regards the awareness of men like Whitefield, Wesley, Spurgeon, Edwards, etc.

I myself am not well read, and cannot reals for extended times, but i try, and appreciate the resources on the web such as yours.

John Bugay said...

I know this thread was old, but i keep discovering what a worthy resource your blog has become, and feel bad so few seem to be aware of it, and this series in particular is a needed one! ... God willing, perhaps someday you will have a real web site, with tabs for different sections and drop down menus.

Hi PeaceByJesus, I do appreciate your comments here. One of my hopes is to try to put together a more permanent, wiki-type of site dealing with Church History. That would tend to enable articles like this one to have more visibility with folks who might be looking for things from this time period.

A blog format is very useful for current events and current discussions, but less favorable, I think, for the presentation of large amounts of material. But still, blogs certainly have their role. There are some good ways to search this blog, too, so please avail yourself of them.

you are doubling as a professor of sorts, and I really appreciate your efforts!

Well, I'm glad you are benefitting from this, and really, the thing I want to do is to share what I've learned along my own personal journey out of Roman Catholicism. There is so much information available. I'm happy to respond to any particular questions you might have. Feel free to email me any time: johnbugay [at] gmail [dot] com.

i think a side effect of the Great Awakenings (the series by J. Edwin Orr is quite good) reaction to institutionalized religion, and the manifestation of what God was doing now in revivals, was a neglect of the historical roots of the faith.

I think that you may be right about this, but I would not want to overemphasize it, either.

If you are interested in audio series', have you considered itunes.rts.edu? They have some excellent seminary courses available for free. I'm blessed with a very long commute to work right now; and I've been listening to these courses for several years.

Really, I'm grateful that you've taken an interest in these subjects, and I'm more than happy to talk with you about whatever comments or questions you might have.

PeaceByJesus said...

Thanks for the encouragement. I look forward to seeing the wiki type
site, but due to the great wealth of material the Lord has enabled you
to produce, ideally it would be a good to have a site with many topics,
with your various posts a being organized accordingly. Yet I sometimes
edit Wikipedia and a couple other wikis, and they can be useful.

By the way, I think the "Francis Beckwith, Still a Protestant at Heart
"
whole page is one of the best in terms of wealth of content as well as quality
posts.

The unity card is a favorite argument of Catholics, but as we
both argue, not only can Catholics widely disagree, and do (which I also
substantiate
),
but the means of achieving what unity they are alleged to have is by
implicit trust in the AIM, which unity is inferior in quality to that
which is the result of being convinced by "manifestation of the truth."

BTW, i did email you at the address you gave, @gmail.com, but it came back "rejected by the recipient domain."

See the home page of the above link for mine.