Home Forums Church History I Week #2 Class Response My Response to the Articles Understanding of Early Church History

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #14302
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    The article states that its purpose is to show that the bible has been abused by people who don’t understand it, thus causing trouble for others. It also alludes to the idea that if people really read it and knew the issues in scripture then they would not want to believe or follow it. The article is written in a way that has an air of being objective but is mostly pointing out perceived and researched discrepancies in the word of God.

    Kurt Eichenwald writes about the early church as though all the varying heresies are equal sects of christianity. That the truth is, devout Christians, Orthodox, Gnostic and the like were all equally confused about the legitimacy of their faith and thus caused trouble by passionately believing something they did not understand.

    By quoting men such as Dr. Bart Ehrman, and pointing out favorite passages like the account in John, creation itself, and other details in scripture that seem to not add up Kurt is taking a stance quite like that of Bart Ehrman himself in his attempt to debunk the unity of scripture.

    It is important to note that every single life in Christian history and all history for that matter is riddled with sin, As Christians we know this, and it points us to the grace, and forgiveness needed from God through Christ at the Cross. When Kurt discusses one side of Constantine there is no grace, there is no forgiveness, there is no purpose in what he did, there is just worldly injustice seen in a way that would baffle anyone. Kurt writes about Constantine’s pitfalls in a way that I don’t fully understand because I am not that informed of the life of Constantine, but in other areas of his article such as that of 1 Timothy and the rights of women being discussed there I can find comfort in seeing the misunderstandings and untruths in his claims. With having studied 1 Timothy I can see Kurt’s faults in his claims, and I can assume that the same is true in various other places in this article.

    The Christian cannot know all things, nor should we feel like we need to, but we can actively continue learning, and we will slowly start to see more and more the errors and misunderstandings of writers like Kurt. And for the translation errors and areas of history we don’t get to know or understand we can trust them to the all knowing God whose word is inspired and illuminated by the holy spirit. Perhaps we can learn from Tertullian’s perspective in that the scriptures belong to the Church.

    #14306
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    These are all really good points! Building on what you said in your last paragraph, I think it is important for us as Christians to study the Word in depth as well as topics such as church history in order to point out errors and misconceptions, such as the ones that you found in the author’s interpretation of 1 Timothy. When we are ignorant to the truth it is easy to stumble on articles such as these and rather than filtering them through the truth, we accept them as fact, and are in danger of being led astray, as well as leading others astray.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.